Chaney Bldg. Co. v. City of Tucson, No. 18338-PR

CourtSupreme Court of Arizona
Writing for the CourtGORDON; HOLOHAN
Citation148 Ariz. 571,716 P.2d 28
Docket NumberNo. 18338-PR
Decision Date06 March 1986
PartiesCHANEY BUILDING CO., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. CITY OF TUCSON, Defendant/Appellant.

Page 28

716 P.2d 28
148 Ariz. 571
CHANEY BUILDING CO., Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
CITY OF TUCSON, Defendant/Appellant.
No. 18338-PR.
Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.
March 6, 1986.
Reconsideration Denied April 22, 1986.

Page 29

[148 Ariz. 572]

Norris L. Ganson, Monroe & Kofron, P.C., by John E. Kofron, Tucson, for plaintiff/appellee.

Frederick S. Dean, Tucson City Atty., Tobin Rosen, Asst. Tucson City Atty., Tucson, for defendant/appellant.

GORDON, Vice Chief Justice.

This is a case involving the construction of a fire station in Tucson, Arizona. John R. Kulseth Associates, Ltd. (Kulseth) entered into a contract with the City of Tucson (Tucson) dated October 27, 1980, to furnish architectural services for the design of a structure known as Fire Station 7. On January 27, 1982, Chaney Building Co., Inc. (Chaney) entered into a contract with Tucson to build Fire Station 7. The contract contained a provision which required Chaney to complete the building within 245 days, but this provision was later extended 45 days by a contract change order. However, Chaney did not complete the building within the agreed upon time frame and as of February 28, 1983, the building was 97% complete according to Tucson's estimate for payment.

On April 28, 1983, Chaney received a letter from Tucson notifying Chaney that the building contract between the two parties was terminated as of May 5, 1983. The letter read in part, "[Tucson] will no longer accept your firm's unending delay in completing the work in the above-mentioned project". Tucson hired another contractor to complete the project using retention money withheld from Chaney's contract. Tucson claimed certain work on the building was done improperly by Chaney, but the main factor relied upon by Tucson in the termination of the contract was the delay in the completion of the project.

Chaney filed suit against Tucson alleging breach of contract. Chaney claimed that it had performed its obligations under the contract and was owed $142,554.81 by Tucson. Chaney subsequently filed an amended complaint, again seeking relief against Tucson for breach of contract and against Kulseth for negligence. Chaney alleged that Kulseth negligently prepared the plans and specifications for the building and "as a result of errors in the plans and specifications [Chaney] incurred additional costs beyond the contract bid price". Shortly before trial, Chaney, Tucson and Kulseth executed a stipulation for the dismissal of Kulseth from the action with prejudice. The record on review gives no indication of the underlying reasons for the stipulation.

A jury trial proceeded between Chaney and Tucson. Chaney's first witness was its president, Earl Chaney, who offered testimony regarding problems with the plans and specifications. This subject was a designated topic in the parties' pretrial statement. Three days into trial Tucson objected to testimony regarding the adequacy of the plans and moved for a mistrial. The motion was supported by Arizona case law on the subject of collateral estoppel. Tucson argued that since Kulseth had been dismissed with prejudice and the claim against Kulseth was for negligent preparation of the plans, it was error for Chaney to introduce evidence of defects in the plans. Tucson further argued that the dismissal of Kulseth operated as an adjudication on the merits "of the fact that there was no negligence" in the design plans. The trial

Page 30

[148 Ariz. 573] court overruled the objection and denied the motion for mistrial.

The trial continued with testimony from both sides introduced on the issue of whether the delays were attributable to Chaney or the plans. The instructions given to the jury made it clear that the claim asserted against Tucson was for breach of contract and a verdict was returned in favor of Chaney in the amount of $67,790.07.

The court of appeals reversed based on the trial court's alleged error in refusing to grant Tucson's motion for mistrial. We disagree with the appeals court opinion and vacate Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson, 148 Ariz. 583, 716 P.2d 40, (1985). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3) and Ariz.R.Civ.App.P. 23.

The issue before this Court is whether Kulseth's valid dismissal with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
169 practice notes
  • Patterson v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., No. CV-09-992-PHX-GMS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • February 16, 2010
    ...See Irby Constr. Co. v. Ariz. Dep't. of Revenue, 184 Ariz. 105, 107, 907 P.2d 74, 76 (Ct.App.1995) (citing Chaney Bldg. Co. v. Tucson, 148 Ariz. 571, 573, 716 P.2d 28, 30 In this case, collateral estoppel does not apply because the issue of whether Krause-Werk is subject to personal jurisdi......
  • Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners of State of Ariz., No. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • September 8, 1987
    ...decision, there is a valid and final decision on the merits, and there is a common identity of the parties. Chaney Bldg. Co. v. Tucson, 148 Ariz. 571, 716 P.2d 28 (1986); J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors, 142 Ariz. 400, 690 P.2d 119 (App.1984). This g......
  • In re Wald, Bankruptcy No. 95-00408-BGC-7
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • March 26, 1997
    ...of a judgment entered by confession, consent or default, none of the issues is actually litigated." Chaney Bldg. Co. v. City of Tucson, 148 Ariz. 571, 716 P.2d 28, 30 (1986). See also State v. Powers, 184 Ariz. 235, 908 P.2d 49, 51 (Civ.App.1995); Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n of Ariz......
  • Banner Univ. Med. Ctr. Tucson Campus, LLC v. Gordon, No. 2 CA-SA 2019-0051
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • May 29, 2020
    ...of a settlement." Jamerson v. Quintero , 233 Ariz. 389, ¶ 6, 313 P.3d 532 (App. 2013) ; see also Chaney Bldg. Co. v. City of Tucson , 148 Ariz. 571, 574, 716 P.2d 28, 31 (1986) ("In cases of derivative liability, a judgment or dismissal in favor of the servant relieves the master of liabili......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
167 cases
  • Patterson v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., No. CV-09-992-PHX-GMS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • February 16, 2010
    ...See Irby Constr. Co. v. Ariz. Dep't. of Revenue, 184 Ariz. 105, 107, 907 P.2d 74, 76 (Ct.App.1995) (citing Chaney Bldg. Co. v. Tucson, 148 Ariz. 571, 573, 716 P.2d 28, 30 In this case, collateral estoppel does not apply because the issue of whether Krause-Werk is subject to personal jurisdi......
  • Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners of State of Ariz., No. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • September 8, 1987
    ...decision, there is a valid and final decision on the merits, and there is a common identity of the parties. Chaney Bldg. Co. v. Tucson, 148 Ariz. 571, 716 P.2d 28 (1986); J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors, 142 Ariz. 400, 690 P.2d 119 (App.1984). This g......
  • In re Wald, Bankruptcy No. 95-00408-BGC-7
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • March 26, 1997
    ...of a judgment entered by confession, consent or default, none of the issues is actually litigated." Chaney Bldg. Co. v. City of Tucson, 148 Ariz. 571, 716 P.2d 28, 30 (1986). See also State v. Powers, 184 Ariz. 235, 908 P.2d 49, 51 (Civ.App.1995); Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n of Ariz......
  • Banner Univ. Med. Ctr. Tucson Campus, LLC v. Gordon, No. 2 CA-SA 2019-0051
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • May 29, 2020
    ...of a settlement." Jamerson v. Quintero , 233 Ariz. 389, ¶ 6, 313 P.3d 532 (App. 2013) ; see also Chaney Bldg. Co. v. City of Tucson , 148 Ariz. 571, 574, 716 P.2d 28, 31 (1986) ("In cases of derivative liability, a judgment or dismissal in favor of the servant relieves the master of liabili......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT