Opinion
No. 12–P–1128.
2013-07-25
W. Martin KERANS v. Ilona L. BARANAUSKAS.
By the Court (GRASSO, HANLON & HINES, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Following a jury-waived trial, a judge of the District Court found in favor of the plaintiff contractor, W. Martin Kerans, on his claim for damages in relation to a home renovation project. The defendant owner, Ilona L. Baranauskas, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the District Court Department, which affirmed. This appeal followed. We affirm.
He also found in favor of the plaintiff on the defendant's counterclaim.
Background. The essential facts are as follows. In early 2008, the defendant contacted the plaintiff, whom she knew through her employer, seeking to have him renovate an investment property she owns in South Boston. On June 2, 2008, the parties signed a proposal listing the essential work to be done at a proposed cost of $22,500. By November, 2008, the defendant had paid a total of $24,000, but the work was not yet completed. She thereafter contacted the plaintiff, who agreed to put the project on the “front plate.” By February, 2009, the plaintiff had finished the job, with the exception of certain occupancy inspections, and sent the defendant a final invoice totaling $15,297.17 for additional materials, labor, and subcontractor costs. The defendant responded by locking the plaintiff out of the worksite. He then commenced the present action, seeking payment for the unpaid invoice. Following a two-day trial at which both the plaintiff and the defendant testified, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff on a theory of quantum meruit. The judge based his award on his finding that “the parties entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff would be paid for his time and materials ... [and] that it is not unusual for home improvement construction jobs to cost more than what was originally contemplated by the parties.” The judge nevertheless reduced the plaintiff's damages to $12,000 based on his finding that the plaintiff had not adequately proven his labor charges.
The property is an approximately 400 square foot residential condominium.
In her appeal to the Appellate Division, the defendant argued that the June 2, 2008, proposal constituted a binding contract at the listed price of $22,500. The Appellate Division disagreed, and affirmed the judgment. This appeal followed.
Discussion. On appeal, the defendant essentially renews the argument she made before the Appellate Division. She also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence before the trial judge.
a. Existence of a binding contract. The question of contract formation is one of fact. See Dennis v. Kaskel, 79 Mass.App.Ct. 736, 741 (2011). Here, the judge credited the plaintiff's version of events, finding that the June 2, 2008, proposal did not rise to the level of a binding agreement. There was no error. See Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(c), as appearing in 450 Mass. 1404 (2008); Custody of Eleanor, 414 Mass. 795, 799–800 (1993). The proposal contained no start or completion date, no payment schedule, and only a vague description of the overall scope of the work. As the judge found, there were no plans, blueprints, or architectural drawings accompanying the application for a building permit. Thus, as written, the supposed contract was too vague and indefinite to be enforced. See Lambert v. Fleet Natl. Bank, 449 Mass. 119, 125 (2007).
b. Sufficiency of the evidence. In order to recover under a theory of quantum meruit, the plaintiff had the burden of proving both substantial performance of the work and a good faith effort to perform that work fully. See Peabody N.E., Inc. v. Marshfield, 426 Mass. 436, 442 (1998). The measure of quantum meruit damages is the fair and reasonable value of the material and labor supplied, a question for the fact finder. See J.A. Sullivan Corp. v. Commonwealth, 397 Mass. 789, 797 (1986).
Here, there is no question that the plaintiff substantially performed the contract in good faith. As to damages, he sought reimbursement in the amount of $15,297.17 for his own work, materials (which included the cost of his subcontractors whom he had paid in full), and a balance of $539.56 owed on the previous invoice. The amount the judge awarded, which was significantly less than the plaintiff sought, was supported by the plaintiff's testimony and the documentary evidence.
Contrary to the suggestion of the defendant, we see nothing in the judge's decision establishing that he switched the burden of proof regarding damages to the defendant. Rather, the statement the defendant cites was a reference to the failure of her trial attorney to persuade the judge that any of the materials listed on the final invoice were not the legitimate costs and expenses claimed by the plaintiff.
Likewise, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff failed to prove his damages below because some of the work and materials claimed predated the November, 2008, invoice is without merit. Our review of the record reveals that those claims were not presented below, nor were they addressed by the judge or the Appellate Division. We accordingly deem them to be waived. In any event, the evidence presented supports the judge's decision.
Decision and order of the Appellate Division affirmed.