Opinion
No. 3-755 / 03-0256
May 26, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Thomas M. Horan, Judge.
A building owner appeals from a district court ruling that entered a judgment in favor of a roofing contractor. AFFIRMED.
Mark Herzberger and Brenda Wallrichs of Moyer Bergman, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Kevin Caster of Shuttleworth Ingersoll, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Dan's Overhead Doors More, Inc. (Dan's) appeals following a district court ruling that entered a judgment in favor of All Eastern Iowa Gutter, Inc. (All Eastern). After an examination of the record and the district court's ruling, we conclude this appeal may be appropriately addressed by memorandum opinion. See Iowa Court Rule 21.29. Upon our review for the correction of errors at law, Iowa R. App. P. 6.4, we affirm the district court.
Dan's entered into contracts with All Eastern for All Eastern to install metal roofing, siding and gutters on two of Dan's buildings. Under the contract for the first building, Dan's made a down payment of $11,452 and a progress payment of $10,000 towards the $46,610 contract price. Under the contract for the second building, Dan's made a $2,792 down payment towards the $11,168 contract price. Work on the first building was completed and approved by Dan's, subject to the installation of two vent boots. After All Eastern began some minor work on the second building, Dan's refused to pay the balance due under the first contract, citing numerous alleged defects in the roof.
All Eastern filed suit against Dan's, seeking the remaining balance under the first contract, and lost profits under the second. Dan's counterclaimed alleging breaches of contract, express warranty, and implied warranty. It also sought the cost to repair or replace the roof on the first building. Following a bench trial the district court concluded All Eastern had substantially performed under the contract for the first building, and the parties had mutually rescinded or abandoned the second contract. The court rejected Dan's counterclaims, determining Dan's had not established its claims or the amount of its damages. The court awarded All Eastern the balance due under the first contract minus the down payment it had received under the second.
Dan's appeals, contending the district court erred in concluding All Eastern substantially complied with its contract on the first building, because the court ignored the testimony of All Eastern's own expert as well as photographs of the roof that "conclusively demonstrate significant defects." Dan's also asserts it is entitled to the cost to replace the roof. We do not agree.
If All Eastern established that it substantially complied with the contract, it is entitled to recover the contract price, minus any deductions for defects or incompletions established by Dan's. See Moore's Builder and Contractor, Inc. v. Hoffman, 409 N.W.2d 191, 194 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987). In concluding All Eastern had substantially complied with the contract, and Dan's had not established defects or incompletions, the district court found the roof conformed to the parties' expectations at the time of contracting. The court determined various alleged defects were in compliance with workmanlike standards, did not impair the structure of the roof, and/or in some cases were attributable to the decisions or actions of, or occurred with the knowledge and consent of, Dan's employees and representatives. All these matters were the subject of conflicting evidence, including testimony from both parties' representatives and experts.
Substantial performance occurs when any omissions or deviations from the contract . . . are inadvertent or unintentional, not the result of bad faith, do not impair the structure as a whole, are remedial without doing material damages to other portions of the building, and may be compensated for through deductions from the contract price.
Moore's Builder and Contractor, Inc. v. Hoffman, 409 N.W.2d 191, 193 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (citation omitted).
It is the role of the district court, and not this court upon appeal, to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses. Tim O'Neill Chevrolet, Inc. v. Forristall, 551 N.W.2d 611, 614 (Iowa 1996). The district court's fact findings are binding upon us if supported by substantial evidence. Id. ("Evidence is substantial if reasonable minds could accept it as adequate to reach the same findings."). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, and liberally construe the court's findings to uphold, rather than defeat, its decision. Id.
Applying the foregoing standards, we conclude the court's fact findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Its legal conclusions and judgment are consistent with and fully supported by those findings. We therefore affirm the decision of the district court.