Gressley v. Patterson Tillage & Leveling Inc.

• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: OGG; JACOBSON
• Citation: Gressley v. Patterson Tillage & Leveling Inc., 579 P.2d 1124, 119 Ariz. 154 (Ariz. App. 1978)
• Decision Date: 18 May 1978
• Docket Number: CA-CIV,No. 1,1
• Parties: Forrest GRESSLEY and his wife, Emily Gressley, Appellants, v. PATTERSON TILLAGE & LEVELING INC., an Arizona Corporation, Appellee. 3773.

Page 1124

579 P.2d 1124

119 Ariz. 154

Forrest GRESSLEY and his wife, Emily Gressley, Appellants, v. PATTERSON TILLAGE & LEVELING INC., an Arizona Corporation, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CIV 3773.

Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 1,Department B.

May 18, 1978.

Marvin Johnson, P. C., John P. Otto, Phoenix, for appellants.

Sorenson, Esser & Moore, J. William Moore, Phoenix, for appellee.

OPINION

OGG, Judge.

The sole issue on this appeal concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's judgment in favor of the appellee Patterson Tillage & Leveling, Inc. (Patterson) on its complaint and against the appellants Forrest and Emily Gressley (Gressley) on their counterclaim. The complaint sought recovery of the reasonable value of certain ground leveling and ditching services and materials furnished by Patterson to Gressley; the counterclaim alleged that those services had not been properly performed and sought damages. The primary issue before the trial court was whether Patterson had completed the required services in a professional and thorough manner in accordance with the plans furnished by Gressley. The trial court ruled that the work had been properly performed and awarded Patterson $9,217.20 as the reasonable value of the services and materials, plus $900 attorney fees. Gressley now appeals from that award and the denial of the counterclaim.

Since the trial court was not requested to and did not make findings of fact or conclusions of law, this court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment, and if there is any evidence to support the judgment it must be affirmed. Jerger v. Rubin, 106 Ariz. 114, 471 P.2d 726 (1970). We affirm the judgment.

The record indicates that in early 1973 the parties entered into an oral contract under which Patterson was to level and ditch two 40 acre tracts of land belonging to Gressley in accordance with a plan prepared by Dean Griffith, an employee of the United States Soil Conservation Service. Gressley agreed to pay the reasonable value for the work. When Patterson had completed the leveling and ditching, Griffith inspected the work and found the services had been performed in accordance with his plans except for minor corrections which should have required no more than half a day to complete. These corrections were required because of slight variances between his plan and the actual ground level.

Griffith prepared another plan showing the required corrections. Patterson made these corrections and billed Gressley for its services. Gressley made no complaint about the quality of the services until four months later, after Patterson had turned its bill over to a collection agency. The total reasonable value of all services and materials was $13,217.20, of which Gressley had paid $4,000. In our opinion this evidence amply supports the trial court's judgment.

Gressley complains that the evidence on the counterclaim was " undisputed and largely physical" and that the trial court's judgment was not supported by the evidence. We disagree. We believe the counterclaim and complaint were completely interdependent and the...