Hott v. Tillotson-Lewis Const. Co., TILLOTSON-LEWIS
| Citation | 682 P.2d 1220 |
| Decision Date | 29 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81CA0946,TILLOTSON-LEWIS,81CA0946 |
| Parties | Wade E. HOTT and Bettie L. Hott, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v.CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Paul G. Tillotson and Howard Lewis, individually, Defendants Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Bill IRWIN, d/b/a Troost Roofing and Guttering, Third-Party Defendant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Fleming, Pattridge, Hacking & Gardner, Conrad E. Gardner, Golden, for plaintiffs-appellants and cross-appellees.
Plaut, Lipstein & Beckman, P.C., Evan S. Lipstein, Lakewood, for defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellees and cross-appellants.
In an action for breach of a construction contract, plaintiffs, the Hotts, appeal a judgment in which the trial court failed to award them prejudgment interest and in which, after a motion for new trial, it deleted the individual liability of Lewis and Tillotson, two of the defendants. Defendants Tillotson-Lewis Construction Company, Inc., Lewis, and Tillotson cross-appeal, asserting that the trial court erred in allowing certain testimony, in determining present value, and in cancelling a promissory note. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Plaintiffs contracted with defendants to build a house. Representations were made that Tillotson and Lewis were partners and Lewis signed papers as a partner. Neither the contract nor other documents reflected the existence of a corporation. The house built was defective, and it was also determined that plaintiffs were charged and paid for materials not used in the construction. After the construction was basically completed and at the time of closing, plaintiffs learned that Tillotson and Lewis had a corporation in existence at the time of construction.
The trial court awarded damages equal to "cost of completion" as of the date of completion and cancelled the promissory note executed by plaintiffs in favor of Tillotson-Lewis Construction Company, Inc. No prejudgment interest was awarded. At the hearing on motions to amend or for new trial, the court affirmed the judgment against the corporation but amended the judgment to eliminate any individual liability of Tillotson or Lewis.
Defendants contend that this court is without jurisdiction to address the individual liability issue because plaintiffs did not file any post-judgment motion after the court amended its judgment to eliminate individual liability. We disagree.
A motion for new trial is not necessary under C.R.C.P. 59(h) when it is "after any hearing not involving controverted issues of fact." Where, as here, the hearing on the motions to alter or amend or for new judgment did not involve underlying facts and circumstances in dispute, a motion for new trial after the court amends its judgment is not required. Rowe v. Watered Down Farms, 195 Colo. 152, 576 P.2d 172 (1978); see O'Hara Group Denver, Inc. v. Marcor Housing Systems Inc., 197 Colo. 530, 595 P.2d 679 (1979). Therefore, the issue of individual liability of Tillotson and Lewis is properly before this court on appeal.
The plaintiffs first contend that Tillotson and Lewis are individually liable on the contract because they were agents of an undisclosed principal, Tillotson-Lewis Construction Company, Inc. We agree.
As individuals acting within the scope of their authority for a corporation, Tillotson and Lewis are individually liable if they are acting for an undisclosed principal. Fink v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 161 Colo. 342, 421 P.2d 735 (1966). The fact that their signatures do not show their capacities as officers is not dispositive. Masinton v. Dean, 659 P.2d 50 (Colo.App.1982). As in Conner v. Steel, Inc., 28 Colo.App. 1, 470 P.2d 71 (1970), the question here is whether the plaintiffs had notice that the principal was a corporation, and not a partnership.
None of the documents received by plaintiffs prior to closing reflected the name of the corporation, which thereby would have revealed its corporate status, the signatures indicated that a partnership existed, and there was no other evidence that plaintiffs knew of the existence of the corporation. Therefore, there was no evidence to support the trial court's conclusion, and, as a matter of law, Tillotson-Lewis Construction Company, Inc., was an undisclosed principal. Hence, as its agents, Tillotson and Lewis are individually liable on the contract.
Plaintiffs further contend that prejudgment interest should have been awarded to them. Section 5-12-102(1)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.) allows interest to be awarded for money or property wrongfully withheld. We conclude, for the reasons stated in Isbill Associates, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 666 P.2d 1117 (Colo.App.1983), that prejudgment interest may be awarded in a breach of construction contract case, even if the amount is unliquidated at the time of the wrongful withholding. See § 5-12-102(3), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.); Acme Delivery Service, Inc. v. Samsonite Corp., 663 P.2d 621 (Colo.1983). Therefore, the court erred in failing to award prejudgment interest from the date of completion of the house to the date of judgment or payment, whichever is first. The amount awarded should be determined pursuant to § 5-12-102(1)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), or at plaintiffs' election, pursuant to § 5-12-102(1)(b).
On cross-appeal, defendants first contend that the trial court erred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowell Staats Min. Co., Inc. v. Pioneer Uravan, Inc.
...and County of Denver, 666 P.2d 1117 (Colo.App.1983); LaFond v. Basham, 683 P.2d 367 (Colo.App.1984); and Hott v. Tillotson-Lewis Construction Co., 682 P.2d 1220 (Colo.App.1983) ] have bestowed on the statute. Specifically, I take issue with applying the statutory phrase "money or property .......
-
Atlantic Richfield Co v. Farm Cred Bnk Wichita
...of Denver, 862 P.2d 949, 955 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992) (deeming the phrase "actual costs" to be ambiguous); Hott v. Tillotson-Lewis Constr. Co., 682 P.2d 1220, 1223 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983) (finding the term "cost-plus" to be Generic dictionary definitions also provide little assistance in resolvi......
-
Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 97SC199
...216(c); 2 Am.Jur., Agency, § 241. See also Flatiron Paving Co. v. Wilkin, 725 P.2d 103, 106 (Colo.App.1986); Hott v. Tillotson-Lewis Constr. Co., 682 P.2d 1220, 1222 (Colo.App.1983); accord Jensen v. Alaska Valuation Serv., Inc., 688 P.2d 161, 162-63 (Alaska 1984); Rafner v. Toplis & Hardin......
-
Southgate Water Dist., Arapahoe and Douglas Counties v. City and County of Denver By and Through Bd. of Water Com'rs, 89CA1719
...must be construed in conformity with the plain and generally understood definition of terms employed. Hott v. Tillotson-Lewis Construction Co., 682 P.2d 1220 (Colo.App.1983). Here, with the exception of the charges for conduits, the agreement set forth that Southgate would pay a portion of ......
-
Collecting Pre- and Post-judgment Interest in Colorado: a Primer
...687 P.2d 1326 (Colo.App. 1984). 35. Id. at 1329. 36. Supra, note 31 at 1022-23. 37. See, e.g., Hott v. Tillotson-Lewis Construction Co., 682 P.2d 1220 (Colo.App. 1983); Isbill Assoc., Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 666 P.2d 1117 (Colo.App. 1983). 38. See, e.g., Benham v. Mfg. and Wholes......
-
Let the Builder-vendor Beware: Defenses and Damages in Home Builder Litigation-part Ii
...29. See generally, Annot., 61 A.L.R.3d 922 (1975). 30. Davies v. Bradley, 676 P. 1242, 1246 (Colo.App. 1983). 31. CRS § 13-21-102(b). 32. 682 P.2d 1220 (Colo.App. 1983). But see, Lowell Stoats Mining Co., Inc. v. Pioneer Uravan, Inc., 645 F.Supp. 254 (D.Colo. 1986) (in breach of mining cont......