Malmin v. Grabner
| Decision Date | 22 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41058,41058 |
| Parties | C. 'Curt' MALMIN, Respondent, v. Sophia R. GRABNER et al., Appellants, Merchants National Bank of Winona, Defendant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a contractor's proposal to remodel a building was submitted without a definite bid, on the basis of an 'estimate' of costs with a specified hourly labor charge, the record supported the trial court's findings that there was no agreement for a maximum price which the builder would charge for the work and materials and that the builder was entitled to recovery on the basis of the reasonable value of materials supplied and labor performed.
2. The issue of whether a contract was entered into is primarily a question of fact, and the findings of the trial court on that issue are entitled to the same weight as those of a jury and will not be reversed unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.
C. Stanley McMahon, Winona, for appellants.
Streater, Murphy & Brosnahan, and Robert D. Langford, Winona, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and MURPHY, OTIS, ROGOSHESKE, and SHERAN, JJ.
The defendants appeal from an order of the district court denying their motion for amended findings or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The case involves recovery for the reasonable value of labor and materials furnished in remodeling commercial property. Contrary to the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff entered into a contract to do work for a fixed price, the trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a greater amount of compensation on the basis of the reasonable value of labor and materials furnished.
Although the facts are disputed, it appears from the record that the court could well find that plaintiff, C. 'Curt' Malmin, a carpenter and builder, was approached by the defendants, Karl Grabner and his wife Sophia, who were interested in converting a grocery store into two efficiency apartments. On October 13, 1965, at defendants' request, plaintiff prepared a sketch of the proposed project and estimated the cost at $5,000, plus $274.50 for two picture windows. On October 25, 1965, defendants asked for a written proposal which plaintiff prepared on the assumption that defendants would remodel the building according to plaintiff's sketch. The proposal of October 25 included the explanation, 'actual labor and materials cost to be used in billing.' The plaintiff further provided that the labor was to be paid for on the basis of $4.80 per man hour. The estimated cost for labor and materials was again $5,274.50. The plaintiff and defendants had discussed various alternative plans. Mrs. Grabner suggested that she would furnish a workable plan as she was not sure that she wanted to use the sketch prepared October 13, 1965, by plaintiff. No plan was ever submitted by her, however, although plaintiff repeatedly asked that she submit one.
Authorization was given to begin work about November 1, and on December 8, 1965, plaintiff requested partial payment but did not receive it. About the middle of December, defendants asked plaintiff for a statement to use in securing a bank loan. The statement was to include a breakdown of costs involved in the project. The statement submitted by plaintiff included $2,500 for work finished or in progress and a final figure of $7,274.50, designated 'estimated total.' The latter figure included an item of $2,000, which represented Mr. Grabner's independent contribution to the improvement of the upstairs area and is not involved in this litigation. With this statement defendants obtained a loan from the bank and paid plaintiff the sum of $2,500 about January 11, 1966.
Upon completion of the work, plaintiff submitted his final bill in the amount of $11,029.29, which defendants refused to pay. It appears that while the work was being performed, defendants requested substantial changes from the original proposal, including rewiring of the entire downstairs; relocation of a partition wall dividing the two apartments which necessitated an otherwise unnecessary reinforcement of a main bearing beam; finishing of the interior woodwork; changing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co.
...Site A district court's findings "will not be reversed unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence." Malmin v. Grabner, 282 Minn. 82, 86, 163 N.W.2d 39, 41 (1968). American Hardware argues that the court erred in finding the soil and groundwater at the Arrowhead site were not ow......
-
Untiedt v. Grand Laboratories, Inc., C3-96-590
...of fact, we will not disturb the trial court's resolution of this issue unless it is clearly erroneous. See Malmin v. Grabner, 282 Minn. 82, 86, 163 N.W.2d 39, 41 (1968) (noting "the existence of a contract is primarily a question of fact to be determined by the trial court"); Herron v. Gre......
-
Jadwin v. Kasal
...same weight as those of a jury and will not be reversed unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence." Malmin v. Grabner, 282 Minn. 82, 86, 163 N.W.2d 39, 41 (1968). See also Brekken v. Holien, 289 Minn. 95, 182 N.W.2d 717 (1970). Furthermore, where it is contested whether all it......
-
Grossman v. Grossman Investments, No. A03-859 (Minn. App. 2/3/2004)
...the district court in a nonjury trial on the basis of the evidence presented and the surrounding circumstances. Malmin v. Grabner, 282 Minn. 82, 86, 163 N.W.2d 39, 41 (1968). The general rule requires "explicit statutory or contractual authorization" for an award of attorney fees. Fownes v.......