Johnson* v. Machia

• Decision Date: 10 November 2022
• Docket Number: 22-AP-098
• Parties: Christina Johnson* v. Jeffrey Machia
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

1

Christina Johnson* v. Jeffrey Machia

No. 22-AP-098

Supreme Court of Vermont

November 10, 2022

In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal

APPEALED FROM: SUPERIOR COURT, FRANKLIN UNIT, CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 21-CV-01911 TRIAL JUDGE: DAVID A. BARRA

ENTRY ORDER

PAUL L. REIBER, CHIEF JUSTICE

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's judgment in defendant's favor on plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and recovery of personal property, and on defendant's claim for damage to property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The record reveals the following. After the end of a romantic relationship between plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff filed this lawsuit, seeking to recover unpaid wages for work allegedly performed around defendant's property and certain items of personal property. Plaintiff attached to her complaint a copy of a verified lien against defendant's property based on her claim that she was not paid for work done. Defendant filed an answer denying that plaintiff performed any work for him or that there was any agreement to pay plaintiff for work, and asserting that all personal property belonging to plaintiff had been returned. He also stated counterclaims, including seeking compensation for damage to his camper. He alleged the damage was caused by plaintiff starting a fire in the camper.

Following a trial on the merits, the court issued an order including findings of fact and conclusions of law to resolve the parties' claims. The court construed plaintiff's claim for unpaid wages as one for breach of contract. It determined that plaintiff did not meet her burden of proof to show an agreement for defendant to pay plaintiff for work performed around the property. It also noted that plaintiff did not raise the Prompt Payment Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 40014009, in her pleadings or arguments and could not enforce the lien on defendant's property because it had expired before plaintiff filed suit. The court found that particular items belonging to plaintiff were still in defendant's possession, and ordered defendant to make arrangements through counsel to return those items to plaintiff. However the court concluded that plaintiff failed to show that other items she sought to retrieve belonged to her or were in defendant's possession. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff caused the fire which damaged defendant's camper, and was therefore liable to plaintiff for that damage. The court found credible defendant's testimony which estimated $9000 in damage, so it entered judgment for that amount in defendant's favor on his counterclaim.

On appeal, plaintiff challenges the court's conclusions in defendant's favor. She contends that defendant's testimony was not credible and contests the weight that the trial court assigned to certain evidence. We cannot evaluate plaintiff's arguments because many of the court's factual findings are merely recitations of the evidence, and it is unclear what law the court is applying to certain claims.

"The purpose of findings is to make a clear statement to the parties, and to this Court if appeal is taken, of what was decided and how the decision was reached." Page v Smith-Gates Corp., 143 Vt. 280, 283 (1983) (quotation omitted). "For at least the past forty-five years we have recognized that the mere recitation of evidence is 'immaterial and . . . not for consideration.'" In re Ryan, 2021 VT 82, ¶ 23 (quoting Krupp v. Krupp, 126 Vt. 511, 515 (1967)). "Inadequate and commonly referred to as Krupp findings, such recitations of evidence, which are not adopted by the court as fact, cannot form the basis for a decision." In re M.G., 2010 VT 101, ¶ 14, 189 Vt. 72 (quotation omitted). The court must also indicate what legal standards or frameworks it is applying to each claim so that on appeal we can evaluate whether the findings, if proper, support its conclusions. Where there is no clear indication of how the court reached its decision-either because it failed to explain what law it was applying or failed to make proper findings of fact, or both-remand is appropriate. See Ryan, 2021 VT 82, ¶ 27 (remanding because Krupp findings were inadequate); Page, 143 Vt. at 282-83 (remanding because court did not distinguish between different legal claims in its analysis and made unspecific findings of fact).

Here, the court construed plaintiff's claim for unpaid wages as one for breach of contract. Plaintiff does not dispute this characterization on appeal. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show there was a meeting of the minds regarding payment for work. In general, whether parties formed an agreement depends on their intent and manifestations of their intent, which are factual questions. Bixler v. Bullard, 172 Vt. 53, 58 (2001). The court here made no findings as to what work was actually done or whether defendant ever paid plaintiff for it. After reciting tasks that plaintiff claimed to have completed, the court stated: "[Plaintiff] claims that the parties agreed to pay her for that work. [Defendant] denies that the parties ever reached that agreement." Without resolving this conflicting testimony and determining credibility, it is impossible to tell how the court reached its ultimate conclusion regarding breach of contract. We therefore remand for further findings and any additional analysis that may be necessary on that issue.^[1]

As to plaintiff's claim for the return of personal property the court's order stated that plaintiff "bears the burden to show that [defendant] has her possessions and that he is keeping them from her wrongfully." Because the court made no citations to authority or specific reference to a legal theory, we cannot tell whether the court was analyzing the elements of, for example, replevin, conversion, or some other theory. Plaintiff's filings earlier in the case referenced multiple legal theories, it is unclear from the record which claims may have remained live after trial, and the court's order did not differentiate among them. See Page, 143 Vt. at 28283 (reversing and remanding where trial court did not distinguish between various asserted theories of recovery, failed to make specific findings and conclusions as to each claim, and it was "impossible to tell from the findings whether the judgment for plaintiffs was based on negligence or on strict liability"). We thus cannot evaluate whether the evidence or findings support the elements of the legal claim. Equally as important, the court's findings pertaining to...