A & J Home Repair, LLC v. Jones
| Docket Number | 125,547 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 2023 |
| Parties | A & J Home Repair, LLC, Appellee, v. Shaneatra K. Jones, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from Shawnee District Court; THOMAS G. LUEDKE, judge.
Shaneatra Kay Jones, of Topeka, appellant pro se.
Tai J Vokins, of Sloan, Eisenbarth, Glassman, McEntire & Jarboe, LLC, of Lawrence, for appellee.
Before WARNER, P.J., GARDNER and HURST, JJ.
Shaneatra K. Jones contracted with A &J Home Repair for various projects in her home. When she later terminated the parties' business relationship, A &J billed her for the balance of her account, but Jones refused to pay. A &J then sued her and Jones represented herself in this limited action case tried to the court. After hearing the evidence, the district court judge found for A &J but reduced its claimed damages because it had not completed the projects. Jones then moved to alter or amend or for a new trial, arguing that the trial violated her due process rights, but the district court denied that motion. Jones now appeals, challenging the court's denial of her posttrial motion.
In December 2019, Jones contacted Jason Brown, a licensed general contractor and the sole owner of A &J, about flooring work she needed at her house. After the flooring project was completed, Jones asked Brown to do additional labor in her house. The two agreed on the prices for that work, either orally or by text messages, as new projects arose. This included cabinet installation, backsplash work and the addition of a bathroom. All the work A &J did was requested by Jones.
Brown worked at Jones' house until April 2020. Staffing issues caused delays, and some jobs were uncompleted, including installation of baseboards and flooring transitions. Brown intended to complete these final tasks, but in early April 2020 Brown learned he had potentially been exposed to COVID-19. Because little was known about the spread of COVID-19, Brown felt it was his "responsibility to stay home, or at least contain myself, so that I wasn't out there spreading COVID." The same day that Brown learned of his potential COVID-19 exposure, he told Jones about it and said he planned to stay home for two weeks.
On April 21, 2020, Jones terminated Brown by text message saying she believed he was working on other projects and not quarantining. Brown responded, Jones responded, in part, "there is no final invoice, you didn't finish what was started." The next day Brown sent an itemized invoice to Jones seeking payment for $8,767. Jones paid none of it.
On appeal, Jones contends that she did not have enough time to try her case, that she was precluded from calling her witnesses during the case, and that opposing counsel's handling of her exhibits kept her from admitting some of them at trial. We thus review in detail the pretrial and trial proceedings.
In February 2021, A &J sued Jones seeking $8,767 in damages under the theories of unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Jones answered, acting pro se. In June 2021, A &J served discovery requests on Jones, including requests for admissions, but Jones never responded to them. Nor did she did submit any discovery requests to A &J.
In June 2021, Jones filed a "Motion to Request Judicial [Determination] of the Validity of the Lien." A &J responded, arguing the motion was not properly before the court and was meritless. The district court later denied this motion for lack of jurisdiction, holding that K.S.A. 61-2802(b)(9) excludes declaratory actions from limited actions cases.
In August 2021, A &J moved for summary judgment based on facts considered admitted because Jones failed to respond to A &J's requests for admission. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-236(a)(3). Jones did not respond to the summary judgment motion. Still, the district court held a hearing on that motion in September 2021, then denied summary judgment. The district court found that Jones argued that "she was charged for work not completed, and that the work that was completed was deficient to the extent that it would cost her additional money to correct" and that the "unresolved issue, therefore, is whether it would be inequitable under the circumstances for the Defendant to retain any benefit conferred on her by the Plaintiff" and the extent of any such benefit.
In December 2021, the district court held a pretrial conference, giving parties until January 2022 to exchange witness and exhibit lists. It noted, "Ms. Jones states she will have 3-4 [witnesses]" and the pretrial order states she will have "4-6 witnesses." The pretrial order also required each side to bring three "copies of any exhibits to the trial: one for the Court, one for opposing counsel, and one for themselves to refer to during the trial." Trial was set for February 2, 2022.
A &J timely filed its witness list, identifying two witnesses by name and address. That same day, A &J filed and mailed to Jones its exhibit list, along with a copy of each exhibit. Five days after the deadline, Jones filed a "witness and exhibit list" with the district court. But her witness list named no one; it generically referenced "[a]ll witnesses necessary to establish proper foundation for documents, records, and/or exhibits." Similarly, her exhibit list did not identify any exhibits, but she attached to it 153 pages of photos and text messages, which were unmarked.
Because of inclement weather, the February trial date was continued to April 2022 by agreement of the parties. After that continuance, but before the next trial date, A &J supplemented its exhibit list with another exhibit. Jones did not object. And despite the two-month continuance, Jones neither amended her witness list nor supplemented her exhibit list.
Right before the bench trial began in April 2022, the district court asked Jones if she would have any witnesses besides herself. She responded, "maybe not," and said that she had identified no witnesses in her disclosure because her "witnesses would depend on the case that [A &J] put on."
A & J then presented its case which consisted of Brown's testimony and several exhibits. After Brown's direct examination, Jones engaged in a lengthy crossexamination. During it, the district court judge explained to Jones that even though Brown had not finished the job, Jones may still have benefitted from it: "[Y]ou have to keep in mind that, you know, if the work cost $1 and he provides $0.99 worth of work and there's one penny left . . . that doesn't erase the whole $0.99 that he's provided."
Before ending her cross-examination, Jones asked if the trial would go past noon so she could tell her employer. The district court judge responded that she, not the court, would determine how much longer the trial would take, based on the presentation of her case. The district court judge stated, "[I]t depends on when you think we can get it done," and continuing Jones did not reveal that she had told witnesses not to show up because she thought the trial would end at noon. Shortly after, Jones stated she was done with her cross-examination of Brown, and the court recessed for lunch around noon, ordering the parties to return an hour later.
After the lunch recess, A &J's counsel conducted a brief re-direct of Brown and then rested. Jones then chose to testify, and the district court judge permitted her to do so in narrative form "to provide all the information that you think is relevant." The judge added, "[t]his is your time to tell me everything that you think I need to know about this, okay?" And Jones answered affirmatively.
Jones then testified, admitting that A &J had done some work in every room of her house. She admitted the contract was for $8,000 when work began in January 2020, and that A &J worked for two more months after that until "late March, middle March." Her primary grievances with A &J were that some work was unfinished and that the completed work had been done incorrectly.
Yet Jones called no witnesses to corroborate her opinion of the poor quality of A &J's work. Toward the end of her testimony, Jones tried to testify that "[a]nother company came out there and they said that the plumbing was-" but A &J's counsel objected as hearsay. When Jones protested that this was not hearsay, the district court judge said, "I think you were going to provide the reason, what the other company told you, as to why the sink was clogging up." But before the district court judge could finish ruling on the objection, Jones ended her testimony, declaring, She added, she felt she was "getting screwed by the legal system," and stated, She continued, "I just don't feel that this process is fair to someone."
The court expressed its understanding that it was difficult not to have an attorney but explained that it had to apply the procedural rules evenly:
To continue reading
Request your trial