Title: GARY ZITTERKOPF, D/B/A SUPERIOR WOODS CONSTRUCTION v. BASIL C. BRADBURY

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

GARY ZITTERKOPF, D/B/A SUPERIOR WOODS CONSTRUCTION v. BASIL C. BRADBURY1989 WY 213783 P.2d 1142Case Number: 89-126Decided: 11/29/1989Supreme Court of Wyoming
GARY ZITTERKOPF, D/B/A 
SUPERIOR WOODS CONSTRUCTION, APPELLANT 
(PLAINTIFF),

v.

BASIL C. BRADBURY, 
APPELLEE (DEFENDANT).

Appeal from the District 
Court, ConverseCounty, William A. Taylor, 
J.

Michael D. 
Zwickl, Casper, 
for appellant.

Hugh M. Duncan, 
Casper, for appellee.

Before CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and 
GOLDEN, JJ.

CARDINE, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1.]     Appellant Gary 
Zitterkopf, doing business as Superior Woods Construction, sued to recover 
$13,964.70 upon quantum meruit for remodeling the home of appellee Basil 
Bradbury. After a bench trial, the district court found that the $40,000 
Bradbury had paid sufficiently compensated Zitterkopf for the work done. 
Zitterkopf frames the issues as follows:

"1. The District Court 
erred, and abused its discretion in failing to award compensation to the 
plaintiff on the basis of quantum meruit for the materials and services rendered 
to the Defendant from November 6, 1987 to December 7, 
1987.

"A. The trial court's 
determination that no enforceable contract existed between the parties because 
there was no meeting of the minds has no effect on appellant's ability to 
recover under quantum meruit.

"B. A benefit was 
conferred upon Bradbury which results in an unjust enrichment to 
him.

"C. The requisite 
elements exist in this case to support recovery under quantum 
meruit.

"D. It was an abuse of 
discretion to deny an award under quantum meruit.

"2. The District Court 
erred in failing to find that the Defendant did not meet his requisite burden of 
proof necessary to invalidate the Plaintiff's lien.

"A. An implied contract 
existed upon which to base a valid, enforceable lien.

"B. Appellant complied 
with all statutory requirements with respect to the filing of his lien and the 
requisite notices before and after its filing.

"C. Bradbury did not 
sustain his burden of proving that the lien filed was 
invalid."

Bradbury 
responds with these assertions:

"1. The trial court 
correctly determined that there was never a meeting of the minds between the 
parties concerning the remodeling of Defendant's home.

"2. Under a quantum 
meruit/unjust enrichment theory, the Appellant was entitled to recover what the 
labor or material furnished was reasonably worth. There was no substantial 
evidence that the reasonable worth of the labor and materials exceeded the 
$40,000 already paid.

"3. The trial court's 
disposition of the lien was immaterial to this appeal.

"4. In any event, the 
lien was void because it was not verified as required by law, nor did it contain 
an itemized list setting forth and describing materials delivered or work 
performed."

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

FACTS

[¶3.]     Zitterkopf and Bradbury 
first discussed remodeling work on Bradbury's house in August of 1987. The 
original agreement involved work on the garage and kitchen. Work started in 
mid-September; and before the end of the month, Bradbury requested that 
Zitterkopf do additional work including building a library, office, reloading 
room, bathroom and shooting room. The parties never discussed cost of the work 
until Zitterkopf presented Bradbury with invoices for the work. As of November 
17, 1987, Bradbury had paid Zitterkopf a total of $40,000. Shortly after this, 
Bradbury became concerned about the cost of the project. He scheduled a meeting 
with Zitterkopf on November 20 to discuss the matter. He cancelled the meeting, 
however, and suggested that Zitterkopf contact his attorney. Zitterkopf 
continued working until December 6. Zitterkopf, on March 7, 1988, filed a lien 
on Bradbury's home for the additional amount he claimed owing for the project, 
plus interest.

[¶4.]     Zitterkopf admitted the 
lack of agreement as to the cost of the project. Bradbury presented evidence of 
problems with the work done, including the collapse of the wooden deck from 
which Zitterkopf had removed a 4 X 4 support, the window wells falling off the 
garage due to drainage problems, and Zitterkopf's employees burning holes in a 
new carpet.

[¶5.]     In addition, although 
Zitterkopf first testified that he marked up his labor charges about 15 to 17 
percent, the evidence showed that he actually charged Bradbury about 100 percent 
more for labor than he paid his employees. Zitterkopf also charged Bradbury for 
his time on the project while he was charging for his time on another job done 
on the same day. When Bradbury requested to see invoices for materials, 
Zitterkopf provided Bradbury with supplier's invoices on which Zitterkopf had 
filled in marked-up prices and included sale tax amounts to reflect these 
marked-up charges.

[¶6.]     Following the trial, 
the district court found no express contract between the parties because there 
was never a meeting of the minds. Further, the court found that the $40,000 
Bradbury had already paid was the quantum meruit value of the work done by 
Zitterkopf.

DISCUSSION

1. Quantum Meruit

[¶7.]     Quantum meruit is an 
equitable doctrine that provides for recovery of damages on an implied contract. 
To be actionable a plaintiff must prove the following four 
elements:

(1) Valuable services 
were rendered, or materials furnished,

(2) to the party to be 
charged,

(3) which services or 
materials were accepted, used and enjoyed by the party, 
and,

(4) under such 
circumstances which reasonably notified the party to be charged that the 
plaintiff, in rendering such services or furnishing such materials, expected to 
be paid by the party to be charged. Without such payment, the party would be 
unjustly enriched.

Johnson v. 
Anderson, 768 P.2d 18, 25 (Wyo. 1989); see also Silver Dollar Motel, Inc. v. Taylor 
Electric Co., 761 P.2d 1006 (Wyo. 1988), and 
Pancratz Co., Inc. v. Kloefkorn-Ballard Construction/Development, Inc., 720 P.2d 906 (Wyo. 
1986).

[¶8.]     The relevant standard 
for our review of this case requires that we accept the evidence of the 
prevailing party as true and disregard the evidence of the unsuccessful party. 
Merritt v. McIntyre and McIntyreGardenCenter and Greenhouse Co., 613 P.2d 206, 209 fn. 4 
(Wyo. 1980). 
The trial court's findings are presumed correct. Pancratz, 720 P.2d  at 909. The 
burden of proof for value of the services and materials is upon the party 
asserting quantum meruit. Snearly v. Hockett, 352 P.2d 230, 234 (Wyo. 1960). Further, the 
party asserting the claim must show that any enrichment was unjust. Bereman v. 
Bereman, 645 P.2d 1155, 1160 (Wyo. 1982).

[¶9.]     In this case, the 
evidence shows that Zitterkopf provided services and materials to Bradbury and 
was, in turn, paid $40,000 for those services and materials. Zitterkopf based 
his claim on his invoices which Bradbury impeached as erroneous and inflated. 
Moreover, Zitterkopf's claim failed to account for the damages he caused to 
Bradbury's property. Quantum meruit means "as much as he deserves." Pancratz, 
720 P.2d  at 908. The trial court found "that $40,000.00 is the value of the 
addition and remodeling of the Bradbury home." Nothing in the record suggests 
that the trial court's finding was erroneous. Zitterkopf received fair, 
reasonable and just compensation for the materials furnished and work 
performed.

2. Validity of the 
Lien

[¶10.]  Zitterkopf's claim that the district 
court erred in invalidating his lien on Bradbury's property need not be 
addressed since we do not upset the district court's finding that all 
obligations between the parties have been satisfied. A valid lien requires an 
unsatisfied debt due the lienor. See W.S. 29-1-301 to 29-1-302. No such debt 
exists. Thus, Zitterkopf has no right to a lien.

[¶11.]  Affirmed.