Case ID: mich-app_9/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "J. H. Gillis, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LINEBAUGH v. TOWNES.
    1. Contracts — Partial Performance — Damages.
    Award to defendant homeowners of damages equal to 10% of building contract price plus cost of correcting unworkmanlike parts of work, on defendant’s counterclaim in action by plaintiff builder for balance of contract price, where testimony was that building was 90% completed, would have the effect of allowing double damages to defendants only if the 10% credit for the part of contract uncompleted was already included in the credit given for improperly performed work.
    2. Appeal and Error — Bindings of Pact.
    Judgment of trial court on counterclaim of defendants in action by plaintiff builder against defendant homeowners is affirmed, where specific findings of fact made by trial judge are not questioned by plaintiff and a review of the record, including the findings of fact, does not persuade Court of Appeals that the trial court was clearly in error (GCR 1963, 517.1).
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1] 13 Am Jur 2d, Building and Construction Contracts §§ 44-4§*
    £2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 839 et sey.
    
    Appeal from Washtenaw; Breakey (James B., Jr.), J.
    Submitted Division 2 June 8, 1967, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 493.)
    Decided December 7, 1967.
    Declaration by Paul E. Linebaugh against Henry K. Townes, Jr., and Marjorie C. Townes for balance due on a borne building contract. Defendants counterclaimed. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Crippen & Dever, for plaintiff.
    
      John W. Bae, for defendants.
   J. H. Gillis, J.

Plaintiff-builder sued defendants-owners for tbe balance allegedly due on a borne building contract. Tbe defendants counterclaimed on tbe grounds tbat tbe contract was not completed and, additionally, tbat a portion of tbe completed work was not performed in a workmanlike manner, wbicb required tbe defendants to bave corrections made. A nonjury trial resulted in judgment for tbe defendants. Following a motion filed by tbe plaintiff to amend tbe judgment or grant a new trial, tbe defendants stipulated as to certain credits and tbe court denied tbe plaintiff’s motion but allowed tbe stipulated credits, leaving a balance due defendants of $1,275.07 plus costs. Plaintiff appeals.

Tbe sole issue raised on appeal is whether tbe defendants are entitled to a credit against tbe construction contract of an amount equal to 10% of tbe total contract. This issue arises from plaintiff’s claim tbat tbe court erred in crediting defendants with 10% of tbe contract price after having allowed tbe defendants credit for items of work not performed in a workmanlike manner. Plaintiff contends tbat in effect tbe trial judge allowed tbe defendants double damages. This claim can be established only by demonstrating tbat tbe 10% credit given for tbe portion of tbe contract not completed already bad been accounted for in tbe credit given for items of improperly performed work.

Tbe trial judge made specific findings of fact not questioned by plaintiff. A review of tbe record, including tbe findings made by tbe trial court, does not persuade us that tbe court was clearly in error. GrCR 1963, 517.1.

Affirmed. Costs to appellees.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn, J., concurred. 
      
       At trial the county building inspector testified that the building, according to the plans and specifications, was approximately 90% completed by the plaintiff.