Broncucia v. McGee, 23637
| Decision Date | 13 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 23637,23637 |
| Citation | 173 Colo. 22,475 P.2d 336 |
| Parties | Dorothy BRONCUCIA and Alfred Broncucia, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Donald McGEE, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Pehr & Newman, Westminster, for plaintiffs in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
This lawsuit arose out of efforts by Dorothy and Alfred Broncucia (the Broncucias) to develop a 'drag strip' near Erie.
McGee, defendant in error (with the Esco Paving Company, no longer a party to the litigation), commenced this lawsuit to foreclose a mechanic's lien. MeGee contracted with the Broncucias to erect three grandstands or bleachers adjacent to the drag strip. The structures were to be built pursuant to mutually agreed upon plans and specifications.
The Broncucias denied the allegations of McGee's complaint, asserted various affirmative defenses, and set forth two counterclaims. It is the denial of these counterclaims by the trial court that the Broncucias allege to be error. McGee has not filed a brief in this court.
The first counterclaim alleged that McGee did not perform the contract, in that he failed to complete the grandstands, used substandard lumber, did not perform the work in a workmanlike manner, and did not correctly design the structure. As a result of Mr. McGee's defalcations, the claim continues, the wind blew down the first grandstand; and, further, the Broncucias alleged, McGee failed and refused to rebuild following the windstorm, all to the damage of the Broncucias in the sum of $18,253.88. The second counterclaim was based on the theory of negligence and alleged the same damages.
McGee answered, alleging that he had agreed to build the grandstands in accordance with mutually agreed upon plans and specifications; that he was in the course of erecting them when they were demolished by a wind of extremely high velocity. Further, he alleged that after the wind damage he was prevented by the Broncucias from repairing the stands or completing their erection; and that he was neither requested nor permitted by the Broncucias to return to the premises to either rebuild or remove the rubble of the demolished grandstand.
The issues were tried to the court without a jury. The court found that neither the claim of McGee nor the counterclaims of the Broncucias had been proved and denied the relief sought by both plaintiff and defendants. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The main thrust of the Broncucias'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health Services Corp.
...cannot do. However, the interdiction of cases of the genre of Page v. Clark, Colo., 592 P.2d 792 (1979), and Broncucia v. McGee, 173 Colo. 22, 475 P.2d 336 (1970), prevents such an I believe Part II of the majority opinion should read as in the following Appendix A. APPENDIX A Part II The e......
-
Kiefer Concrete, Inc. v. Hoffman
...P.2d 737 (1975), Rev'g 33 Colo.App. 360, 521 P.2d 1299 (1974); Harvey v. Irvin, 156 Colo. 391, 401 P.2d 266 (1965); Broncucia v. McGee, 173 Colo. 22, 475 P.2d 336 (1970); People v. Lee Optical, 168 Colo. 345, 452 P.2d 21 (1969). Moreover, even the trial judge, who has the advantage of evalu......
-
Defeyter v. Riley
...all matters within the province of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on review unless manifestly erroneous. Broncucia v. McGee, 173 Colo. 22, 475 P.2d 336 (1970). We conclude that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings in these We do agree......
-
T.W. v. M.C. (In re Interest of Minor Children Baby A), Supreme Court Case No. 14SC1045
...to meet the twins' needs and ease the psychological impact that a change in custody would likely entail. See Broncucia v. McGee, 173 Colo. 22, 475 P.2d 336, 337 (Colo.1970) (articulating that the weight of the evidence is within the province of the trial court).¶ 55 We conclude that clear a......