Opinion
J-A32025-17 No. 665 MDA 2017
01-04-2018
E.B. ENDRES, INC. v. CHRISTOPH & RITA SCHWEMMLEIN, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 4, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Civil Division at No.: 2010-0032 BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------
In this breach of contract and unjust enrichment action, Appellants, Christoph and Rita Schwemmlein, appeal from the Order entering Judgment in favor of Appellee, E.B. Endres, Inc. ("Endres"), following a bench trial. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's well-reasoned and comprehensive Opinion.
We adopt the extensive findings of fact as set forth in the trial court's September 23, 2016 Opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, dated 9/23/16, at 2-19. In summary, Appellants hired Endres, a high-end remodeling company, to make substantial renovations to their house in Alexandria, Pennsylvania. In July 2007, Appellants, along with their friend Klaus Jaeger, met with Richard J. Endres, Jr., the sole stockholder and CEO of Endres, at their Alexandria house and explained the desired renovations and general expectations during a walkthrough of the entire house. Because Appellants resided in Germany at that time, they explained that Endres should work out the details with Jaeger as their agent during the renovations.
After the meeting, Endres submitted a proposed contract and estimate for $167,000.00, but Appellants did not sign this written contract. Based on this understanding, and assurances from Jaeger, Endres started the renovations in August 2007. The scope of the work changed dramatically during the renovations with 81 total change orders, which Endres documented after obtaining verbal authorization and provided Jaeger with a copy of each change order. Appellants made several payments during the project.
In December 2007, Jaeger requested that Endres submit an invoice in the amount of $230,000.00 before the end of the year for Appellants' tax purposes. Though he could only justify $210,000.00 at that point, Endres complied even though work was still in progress. Endres made changes at Appellants' request, and submitted a second invoice, also in the amount of $230,000.00. In letters accompanying the invoices, Endres clarified that these were not final bills. On January 3, 2008, Appellants paid Endres $80,000.00, bringing their total paid for the renovations to $230,000.00, the same amount of Endres' December invoice.
Jaeger and his wife moved into the Alexandria house in January 2008, but the renovations continued until March 2008. On June 17, 2008, Endres presented a final bill for $85,245.61. After negotiations with Appellants over double-billed work, Endres lowered the final bill to $83,596.57 in September 2008. Appellants refused to pay the final bill.
On January 15, 2010, Endres filed a Complaint against Appellants for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in order to collect the amount on the final bill. Following a two-day bench trial in January 2016, on September 23, 2016, the trial court entered a verdict in favor of Endres and against Appellants and filed an Opinion with 91 findings of fact.
On October 3, 2016, Endres and Appellants filed Post-Trial Motions. On October 25, 2016, the trial court entered an Order dismissing Appellant Rita Schwemmlein as a defendant. On March 20, 2017, the trial court entered an Opinion and Order addressing and rejecting each of Appellant Christoph Schwemmlein's issues; the trial court granted Endres' Motion with respect to a request for costs and pre-judgment interest.
On April 4, 2017, the trial court entered Judgment in favor of Endres for a total of $137,268.21, which included $83,596.57 for breach of contract, $53,582.64 for pre-judgment interest, and $89.00 for court costs.
Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on April 19, 2017. Appellants and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellants present four issues for our review:
[1.] Did the trial court err in failing to analyze the elements required to establish an oral contract in holding [Endres] satisfied its burden of proof to establish an oral contract was entered into by the parties for the work at issue to be performed on a time and materials basis?
[2.] Did the trial court err in not finding an express contract existed between the parties establishing a total amount of $230,000.00 for the entire project?Appellants' Brief at 5.
[3.] Did the trial court err in its finding that [Endres] was not limited to actual costs incurred by [Endres] as set forth in Note 7 of the express written contract?
[4.] Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding [pre-judgment] interest where none of the bases for an award of pre[-]judgment interest for a breach of contract claim exist?
In their first three issues on appeal, Appellants essentially challenge the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant's Brief at 18-43. The relevant standard of review following a non-jury trial is as follows:
Our appellate role in cases arising from non-jury trial verdicts is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed error in any application of law. The findings of the trial judge in a non-jury case must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury, and the findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless predicated upon errors of law or unsupported by competent evidence in the record. Furthermore, our standard of review demands that we consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner.Levitt v. Patrick , 976 A.2d 581, 588-89 (Pa. Super. 2009).
The Honorable Stewart L. Kurtz has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Opinion, with references to relevant facts of record and applicable case law. See Trial Court Opinion, dated 3/20/17, at 5-11 (clarifying its findings and conclusions, and rejecting Appellants' claims that essentially ignore the standard of review by attempting to re-litigate trial issues like credibility determinations). The record is free of legal error and the evidence supports the court's challenged rulings. After a careful review of the parties' arguments and the record, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law and we affirm on the basis of that Opinion.
In their fourth issue on appeal, Appellants challenge the trial court's award of pre-judgment interest. Appellants' Brief at 43-45. "Our review of an award of pre-judgment interest is for abuse of discretion." Cresci Construction Services , Inc. v. Martin , 64 A.3d 254, 258 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation and quotation omitted).
Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, pre-judgment interest is a recognized form of damages in breach of contract actions. See id. at 260. The premise for awarding pre-judgment interest in breach of contract actions, is "the fact that the breaching party has deprived the injured party of using interest accrued on money which was rightfully due and owing to the injured party." Somerset Community Hospital v. Allan B. Mitchell & Associates , Inc., 685 A.2d 141, 148 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted).
Where the contract at issue sets forth a liquidated sum, pre-judgment interest is awarded as a matter of right. See id. Where, however, the breach of contract damages are unliquidated, an award of pre-judgment interest is left to the discretion of the trial court, in light of all the circumstances. See Cresci at 264; Frank B. Bozzo , Inc. v. Electric Weld Division of Fort Pitt Division of Spang Industries , Inc., 498 A.2d 895, 901 (Pa. Super. 1985).
The trial court cogently and persuasively addressed this issue in its March 20, 2017 Opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, dated 3/20/17, at 12-14 (concluding that Endres was entitled to pre-judgment interest because the amount Appellants owed Endres was "readily ascertainable" at the time of the breach because the judgment amount was the same as the adjusted final bill Endres presented to Appellants in September 2008). The record is free of legal error and the evidence supports the court's award of pre-judgment interest. We affirm on the basis of that Opinion.
The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court's September 23, 2016 and March 20, 2017 Opinions to all future filings.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/4/2018
Image materials not available for display.