Rucker v. Dalton
| Decision Date | 26 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 16082,16082 |
| Parties | Dale RUCKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Arlin DALTON, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Dale Rucker, pro se.
Ronald R. Stanger, Provo, for defendant and respondent.
This appeal is from a judgment of the district court awarding to plaintiff damages in the amount of $2,000 plus court costs for deficiencies in the plumbing work done as part of the construction of an addition to a residence owned by plaintiff. The case was tried to the court without a jury. Plaintiff seeks reversal of the court's judgment and an increase in the amount of the judgment by an additional $9,490.
In the summer of 1976 plaintiff solicited a bid from defendant, a nonlicensed building contractor, for the construction of an addition to his home. Plaintiff provided floor plans, and from them defendant prepared and submitted to plaintiff a one-page quotation dated July 19, 1976, which was the basis of the agreement between the parties. The bid, designated Exhibit "1", set forth the following items:
Addition size: 16' x 37' on east side of old home.
Basement, concrete, digging $ 1,300.00
Upstairs (main floor) all materials
for framing up to square, roof
included and labor 7,700.00
Plumbing and all fixtures complete 890.00
Metal windows in basement, with
metal frames 237.50
Metal windows on main floors--
30-30 & 2-30-40 180.00
A difference in price, if any, on
wood windows
Marble crete on outside of new
addition 940.00
Electrical work not included ----------
$11,247.50
The parties orally agreed that the defendant would not do the heating work.
Plaintiff applied for and received a building permit in his name. No contractor was named on the application form, and the parties dispute whether plaintiff believed defendant to be a licensed contractor. Defendant's work on the addition was done between August and December of 1976. Defendant hired and paid several employees for work on various aspects of the job. Plaintiff was frequently present during construction, and his son did some of the work. Plaintiff made periodic payments to defendant totaling $11,050. The balance of the agreed-upon price has not been paid.
On the basis of the record it appears (although we do not so hold) that much of the work was done in an unworkmanlike manner. In June 1977 the chief building official for the City of Provo sent a letter to both plaintiff and defendant setting out a number of plumbing code violations and structural deficiencies. The letter stated that corrections needed to be made by properly qualified and licensed contractors. A licensed building contractor testified that to remedy the deficiencies to meet building code requirements would cost an estimated $9,490, excluding plumbing repairs. There was also testimony that the cost of remedying the deficiencies in the plumbing work was $2,000.
Plaintiff brought suit for damages in the amount of $20,000, plus attorney's fees and costs. Defendant counterclaimed for $500, the balance of the price due under the contract, and costs. The trial court awarded $2,000 damages to plaintiff based on deficiencies in the plumbing work only. With regard to the other aspects of the work, the trial court found in its findings of fact that "the plaintiff failed in its burden of proof to establish that the defendant agreed to carry (them) out in a workmanlike proper manner . . . ."
The trial court's findings of fact, in pertinent part, read as follows:
1. That the plaintiff and the defendant arrived at an agreement dated the 19th day of July, 1976 whereby the defendant agreed to do certain construction work for the plaintiff for the sum of $11,247.50.
2. That the plaintiff paid to the defendant the sum of $11,050.00 for the construction work.
3. That at the time of said agreement and during the time the work was performed, the defendant was not a licensed contractor in the State of Utah.
4. That the plaintiff did not control on a day to day basis the plumbing aspect of the agreement dated the 19th day of July, 1976. That the defendant failed to carry out said plumbing work in a proper and workmanlike manner and a reasonable cost for the repair of the same is $2,000.00
5. That the plaintiff failed in its burden of proof to establish that the defendant agreed to carry out in a workmanlike proper manner the balance of the terms of the agreement of the 19th day of July, 1976.
The trial court also filed a memorandum opinion stating that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sykes
...detailed conclusions. This is simply not the case. The supreme court of this state dealt with this very issue. In Rucker v. Dalton, 598 P.2d 1336 (Utah 1979), the supreme court noted the "importance of complete, accurate and consistent findings of fact." Id. at 1338. The Rucker court found ......
-
State v. Marshall
...have consistently required detailed findings of fact to support a judgment entered by a trial judge in civil cases. Rucker v. Dalton, 598 P.2d 1336, 1338 (Utah 1979) ("The importance of complete, accurate and consistent findings of fact in a case tried by a judge is essential to the resolut......
-
Salmon v. Davis County, 940315
...findings, but remands the case for the entry of additional findings. Ramirez, 817 P.2d at 788; Acton, 737 P.2d at 999; Rucker v. Dalton, 598 P.2d 1336, 1339 (Utah 1979). We do so because the trial court should resolve factual inconsistencies before we review an issue on appeal. Otherwise, w......
-
Reid v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co.
...of the ultimate conclusion can be understood. See, e.g., id. at 999; Smith v. Smith, 726 P.2d 423, 426 (Utah 1986); Rucker v. Dalton, 598 P.2d 1336, 1338-39 (Utah 1979). Here, although the findings of fact entered by the trial court are not a model of clarity, we conclude that they are adeq......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review
...(Utah 1987) (findings must show that court's judgment or decree follows logically from and is supported by evidence); Rucker v. Dalton, 598 P.2d 1336, 1338 (Utah 1979) (findings should be sufficiently detailed and include enough material to disclose steps by which ultimate conclusion on eac......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review – Revised [1]
...must be articulated so that the basis of the ultimate conclusion can be understood. See Jeffs, 970 P.2d at 1242; Sucker v. Dalton, 598 P.2d 1336, 1338 (Utah 1979) (holding findings should be sufficiently detailed to show steps by which ultimate conclusion was reached on each factual issue);......