Schmechel v. Ron Mitchell Corp.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 37274,37274 |
| Citation | 67 Wn.2d 194,406 P.2d 962 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | William C. SCHMECHEL and Dolores B. Schmechel, husband and wife, Respondents, v. RON MITCHELL CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Appellant. |
Murray, Scott, McGavick & Graves, Edward M. Lane, Tacoma, for appellant.
James P. Healy, Richard A. Mattsen, Tacoma, for respondents.
Defendant (appellant) is engaged in the construction of low cost, component-built homes. Defendant and plaintiffs (respondents) entered into a contract whereby defendant agreed to construct and erect two duplexes upon plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs intended to utilize the duplexes as rental units. When construction was finished, plaintiffs refused to pay the balance then owing on the contract contending that defendant's workmanship was deficient. Defendant timely filed notice of claim of lien for the contract balance. Plaintiffs initiated suit alleging breach of the construction contract and asking damages. Defendant denied any breach and counterclaimed seeking foreclosure of its lien.
During trial, the parties stipulated that if the trial court found that defendant had failed to substantially comply with the contract, the measure of damages would be the difference between the market value of the dwelling units as constructed and the market value of them if they had been properly constructed.
The trial consumed four days. Much conflicting evidence was introduced in relation to the alleged construction defects. Three witnesses testified as to value. Plaintiffs' witness, using one appraisal approach, testified that the market value of the units as constructed was $18,850 and that it would have been $28,750 had the units been properly constructed. Two witnesses called by defendant, using other appraisal approaches, testified that the cost and market value of the units as constructed was $28,000 and $29,000, respectively. These witnesses stated no other opinion relative to value. Estimates of unit rental potential, presented by both parties, ranged from $75 to $125 a month, although the evidence further indicated that plaintiffs had been unsuccessful in obtaining tenants.
Following trial, the court entered findings of fact to the effect that defendant had breached the contract by virtue of the existence of certain substantial construction defects. Excluded from the defects considered was a claimed defect in the floor of the units, which the trial court found was not attributable to any fault on the part of defendant. These findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are not challenged on appeal.
The trial court further found that, by virtue of the failure of substantial performance, plaintiffs were damaged in the sum of $7,200. Against the amount of plaintiffs' damage the trial court offset the balance due on the contract and an allowance of interest and attorneys fees awarded to defendant upon its lien claim. Defendant has appealed from the damage award. Plaintiffs have not cross-appealed or otherwise challenged the offset.
Defendant's assignments of error present one basic question. Did the trial court in finding plaintiffs' damages to be $7,200 apply a wrong principle of law, misapprehend the facts, or otherwise erroneously estimate the damages?
In support of its contention that the question should be answered in the affirmative, defendant points to the trial court's oral decision, rendered at the conclusion of the trial, wherein the trial court made several calculations to illustrate how it had correlated the assessment to the appropriate measure of damages and checked the amount against the evidence presented. Unfortunately, the trial court's oral exposition is not too clear. Justifying reference to the oral decision in this regard, defendant relies on Malstrom v. Kalland, 62 Wash.2d 732, 736, 384 P.2d 613, wherein we stated:
Fixing the amount of damages is actually a conclusional finding based upon preliminary findings that certain damages were sustained. No reasons are given in a jury verdict fixing the amount of damages unless special interrogatories are propounded. The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stieneke v. Russi
...decision to ascertain the legal and factual basis upon which the trial court predicated its finding. See Schmechel v. Ron Mitchell Corp., 67 Wash.2d 194, 197, 406 P.2d 962 (1965). ¶ 38 Here, the RESPA contained an integration clause This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding betwee......
-
City of Tacoma v. WILLIAM ROGERS COMPANY
...the findings." Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Ctr. v. Holman, 107 Wash.2d 693, 712, 732 P.2d 974 (1987); Schmechel v. Ron Mitchell Corp., 67 Wash.2d 194, 197, 406 P.2d 962 (1965) (finding of fact may be rejected on appeal only if reached on a "wholly erroneous basis"); Lorang, 42 Wash.2d a......
-
Baltzelle v. Doces Sixth Ave., Inc.
...was erroneously made on the basis of hindsight; however, the written findings, which must control (See Schmechel v. Ron Mitchell Corp., 67 Wash.2d 194, 406 P.2d 962 (1965)), indicate that the court properly viewed the matter in terms of foreseeability prior to the fact of the accident. See ......
-
Nord v. Eastside Ass'n Ltd.
...reached on an erroneous basis, and not supported by substantial evidence, are not binding on appeal. Schmechel v. Ron Mitchell Corp., 67 Wash.2d 194, 197, 406 P.2d 962 (1965). We may resort to the trial judge's oral decision to ascertain the legal and factual bases upon which the trial cour......