J o se R u iz a n d V ic e n te R u iz w e re b ro the rs a n d w o rk e d to g e the r in the c o n stru c tio n b u sin e ss. A ltho u g h b o th 1

were nam ed i n M r. M o re n o ’s s ui t , Jo se Ruiz t est i f i ed t hat he was t he 1 0 0 % ow ner of t he co m p any. T here was no te stim o n y a t t ria l as to a n y inte ra c tio n s b e tw e e n V ic e n te R u iz a n d a n y p a rty o r w itne ss. T h u s, a n y re fer e n c e in this

o p inio n to “M r. R u iz ” m e a n s e ithe r J o se R u iz o r th e c o n stru c tio n b u sin e ss h e o p e ra te d w ith h is b ro the r.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE Se pte m be r 12, 200 6 S es sio n
MARTIN MO RENO v . JO SE SE RVANDO RUIZ , ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 05C-208 D avid Rand all Kennedy, Judge

No. M2005- 02223-COA-R 3-CV - F iled on March 12, 2007

A s ma ll c on tr a c tor

e nte re d in to a n o ra l a g re e me nt t o in st all bri c k f a c a de s o n n e w h ou se s in a Mt. Julie t su bd ivi sio n. He didbric kw or k o n e le ve n h ou se s pu rs ua nt to the a g re e me nt, a nd wa s pa id i n cash f or the wor k on an irre g ular ba sis. Be cause he believed the other pa rty to the ag ree ment did not pa y him in f ull , h e wa lke d o ff

the job a ndbr ou g ht su it f

or br e a c h o f c on tr a c t. Abe nc h tria l in Cir c uit Court ultim ately

resulted in a net judgme nt f or the plaintiff in the amount of $397.50. Hearg ued on
ap p e a l th a t th e e v id e n c e s h o w e d th a t h e w a s e n ti tl e d to r e c e iv e o v e r $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 on his claim. We
a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., joined.

W.H. St ephenson, I I , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Martin More no.
O w e n R. L ip s c o mb , N a s h v il le , T e n n e s s e e , f o r th e ap p e ll e e s , Jo s e Se r v a n d o Ru iz a n d V in c e n te Ru iz

. OP IN ION

I. A N O R A L C ONT RACT

Ma rt in Mor e no ow ne d a sma ll co ns truc tio n bus ine ss in Da vid so n Coun ty

. Hi s fr ie nd s Jose and Vice nte Ruiz worke d as contra ctors un d er t he name J .R. Masonry

. They wer e the primary 1

m a s o n r y c o n tr a c t o r s a tW i l l o u g h b y S t a t i o n , a l ar g e s u b d i v i s i o n u n d e r c o n s tru c t i o n i n M r

. J u l i e t

. InW e n ot e t hat M r

. M oren o and M r

. Rui z bot h s po ke E ng l i s h a nd t hat no Spani s h l ang uag e c our t i nt er pret er was 2

use d , b ut t he y bo t h e xp erien ce d d i f f i cu l t y at t i m es re sp o nd i ng t o t he q ue st i o ns o f t he att o rne ys.
-2- May of 2 0 0 4, they

offe red Mr . Moreno subc ontrac ting wor k at Will oug hby

Station. The parties ag ree d that J ose Ruiz would t ell Mr. Moreno w hich houses he and his worker s should lay brick on, and Mr. Ruiz would pay

Mr. Moreno at the rate of $285.00 for eac h 1,000 bricks laid.

Th e a g re e me nt w a s n e ve r r e du c e d to writi ng . H ow e ve r, the pa rt ie s d o no t dis pu te its te rm s, bu t o n l y w h e t h e r M ar t i n M o r e n o w a s f u l l y p a i d

. T h e p r o o f s h o w e d t h a t M r

. M o r e no wo uld p er i o d ically

tell Mr. Ruiz how many bricks his worke rs had laid, a nd Mr. Ruiz would pay Mr. Mo re no in c a sh e ve ry tw o we e ks fo r his wo rk

. Th e a mou nt of su c h pa y me nts di d n ot nece ssa ri ly
corr espond to the exact num ber of bricks laid, but was usually a round numbe r like $4,000 or $3,000. Mr. Moreno w orked on e leven house s in the subdivisi on befor e the pa rties’ a g ree ment fell apa

rt.

Ac c or din g to M r. Mo re no , h e app roachedMr . Ru iz f or pa y me nt o f c omp le te d w or k in Aug ust of 2004 and wa s told that Mr. Ruiz did not have the money . Howev er , M r. More no’s labore rs continued wor

king, a nd when Mr. Mor eno appr oache d Mr. Ruiz agai n an d t old him he couldn’t pay his laborer s, Mr. Ruiz g ave him $4,000. The next day , Mr. Ruiz paid him $2,000. Two
wee ks later, he paid $2,000, and the day afte r that he pa i d $ 1 , 0 0 0

. Mr. Moreno be lieved that Mr. Ruiz still owed him f

or complete d work, but Mr. Ruiz refused f urther pay ment, contending that he had paid e verything he owed.

Mr. Moreno the n complained to Robert Posner, a c onstruction superintende nt at Wil loughby Station who had worke d with Jose Ruiz for many y ear s. Mr. Posner talked to both Mr. More no and Mr. Ruiz in an attempt to settle their dispute, but was not able to make any headw ay . At that time, Mr . M or e no ’s wo rk e rs we re la y ing br ic k on a hou se a t L ot 157

. Whe n it be c a me app are nt t o h im that Mr. Ruiz would not pay what he believed w as owe d, Mr. Moreno a bandoned the job, leaving the house at L ot 157 only partially bricke d.

II. T R I A L P ROCE E DI NGS
Mr. Moreno f

iled a civil war

rant in the Ge nera l Sessions C ourt o f Da vidson Countyon November

22, 2004

. After

a hea ring , the court rende red judg ment in his favor in the a mount of $11,362. Mr. Ruiz timely appea led to the Circuit Court, where a benc h trial was c onducted on June 6, 2005.

The o nly witnesses to testify

wer e Martin Moreno, J ose Ruiz, and Robert Posner. Mr. 2 Moreno testified that he worke d on eleve n houses under his ag ree ment with Mr. Ruiz and that Mr. Ruiz paid him in full for six of the houses. H e c l ai m ed , h o we v er , that he only rec eived pa

rtial pa y me nt f

or the oth e r f

ive ho us e s. To su pp ort th a t c la im h e pr od uc e d p ho tos , w hic h p ur po rt e d to show the five house s in question, a n d a shee t summarizi ng the alleg ed shortfa ll. The five house s wer e labe led on the photos a nd identified in the summary sheet a s Mail Box # 2010, L ot 155, L ot 758, Mail Box # 2017, and L ot 157.-3-

The summary

sheet set out the number s of bricks on e ach house w hich Mr. More no’s worke rs had l ai d but for which he had alleg edly not been pa id (rang ing f rom 5,500 to 34,000 bricks per house) a nd the price for that number of bricks at the rate of $285 pe r thousand. Ac cording to Mr. Mo re no ’s su mma

ry sh e e t, the tot a l payme nts that he sho uld ha ve re c e ive d for the bric kw or k o n th os e five houses w as $22,087.50. The she et re cited total paym en t s re ce i v ed in the amount of $9,000, leaving a bala nce due of $13,087.50.

Robert Posner testified that he had been working on the Will oug hby Station subdi vision for
ov e r t e n y e ars a ndthat it inc lud e d ab ou t 700 hom e s. He wa s ask e d if he wa s fa mil iar with th e lot s in the subdivision, and he responde d that he wa s and that eac h lot number corr esponded w ith a street number. He acknow ledg ed that he ha d broug ht a list of the subdivision l ots with him , and wa s qu e sti on e d a s f

oll ow s: Q. Tell us what L ot No. 155 – what the street number L ot 155 coincides with?

A. Tw e nty -s e ve nte e n ( 20 17 ) A rd e n Co urt.
Q. So, twenty -seve nteen ( 2017) Arde n Court is the same thing a s L ot 155?

A. Th a t’ s c or

re c t.
Q. An y

do ub t a bo ut tha t a t a ll?

A. No, sir.

Mr . Po sn e r w a s a lso a sk e d a bo ut ano the r h ou se sh ow n in on e of Mr . M or e no ’s ph oto g ra

ph s, which wa s labeled Ma il Box 2010. The photo showed a fully -bricke d house, but a ccor ding to Mr. Posner, that particular house ha d not been bricked at the t ime Mr. M oreno walked off the j ob. On
cross-e x amination, he was shown the phot o that was labeled Mail B ox 2010, and wa s asked, “ Does that house look f

amiliar to y ou.” He responde d, “I rea lly couldn’t tell y ou sir. We’ve built so many like it. So, y es, I ’ve se en that house be fore .”

When Mr. Ruiz was called t o the s tand, he testified t hat M r. Moreno’s work was initiallyvery g ood, but that after

a while it deteriorated, w i t h bricks laid out of a lignment a nd no wee p holes ins ta lle d w he re the y

we re ne e de d f

or ve nti la tio n a nddr a ina g e . M r. Rui z te sti fi e d th a t w he re thi s happene d, he had to drill holes and make a ny nece ssary

adjustments at his own expense.

He a lso testified that when Mr. Moreno’s crew walked off t he job on L ot 157, only 15,000 bric ks ou t of the 21 ,0 00 that ha d b e e n d e liv e re d h a d b e e n laid. Som e of the bric ks we re ins ta lle d in the wrong position and had to be remove d so the work could be re- done. Mr Ruiz testified that the
rema ining bricks wer e dumped or destroy ed, forcing him to order more brick. He testified that he lost between $3,000 a nd $4,000 on that house. To support his testimony , he introduce d photogr aphs of the unfinished house , with both whole and broke n bricks piled around the foundation. Like Mr.-4-

Posner, Mr. Ruiz also testi fied that L ot 155 and Nu m b er 2 0 17 wer e diffe rent de signations for the very same house.

After hearing all the evidenc e, the court found that Mr. Ruiz had fa iled to pay Mr. Moreno $13,087.50 that he owed him, but that Mr. M oreno had damag ed Mr. Ruiz in the amount of $3,000 by le a vin g the bric kw or

k o n L ot 1 57 un fi nis he d a ndthe sit e in dis arr a y

. Th e c ou rt su btr a c te d th os e damag es fr om the sum Mr. Ruiz owed, r esulting in a net judg ment of $10,087.50.

Mr. Ruiz filed a Motion to Alter or A mend pursuant to Te nn. R. Civ. P . 59. He c ontended that th e pr oo f s ho we d th a t tw o of the ho us e s fo r wh ic h Mr . M or e no c la ime d p a y me nt w a s w ith he ld (L ot 155 and Mailb o x 2 0 17) we re in fa ct one a nd the same houseand, thus, that the orig inal judgme nt g ave Mr. Moreno a double rec overy for a single structure . The trial c ourt then examined the trial re cord a nd con cluded that Mr. Ruiz was c orre ct. He a ccor dingly g rante d the motion and fi le d a new ju dg me nt w ith de ta ile d f ind ing s o f f

a c t, w hic h r e du c e d M r. Mo re no ’s re c ov e ry to $397.50. Mr. Moreno a

ppeale d.

III
. A N A LY SI S
This case prese nts no leg al i ssues to be decided and only one st raig htforwa rd finding of fa ct to be re viewed: did Mr. More no rec eive the pay ment he wa s d u e u n d er h i s oral c ontrac t with Mr. Ruiz ? Our re view of the case i s co n t ro l l ed b yTenn. R. App. P.13(d) whic h states “. . . r eview of finding s of fa ct by

the trial court in civil actions shall be de novo up on the re c or d of the tr ia l c ou rt , acc o mp a n ie d b y a p r e s u mp ti o n o f th e c o rr e c tn e s s o f th e f in d in g , u n le s s th e p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f the evidenc e is otherwise .” See Limbaugh v. Coffee Me dical Center , 59 S.W .3d 73, 79 (Tenn. 2001)

. There was no dispute that a c ontrac t exi sted and no dispute a s t o i t s re l evant terms. I f the parties ha d manag ed to kee p acc urate rec ords, there would have been littl e difficulty determining the
e xten t of Mr . M or e no ’s e nti tle me nt t o a dd iti on a l pa y me nt. Un fo rtun a te ly , s e ve ra l f a c tor s ma de it difficult to establish the true f acts a t trial: all pay ments by Mr. Ruiz wer e in ca sh; any rec ord-ke eping
wa s ru d i m en t ar y

at b es t ; n ei t h er p ar t y wa s t o t al l y fl u en t i n E n gl i s h ; an d t h e s u b d i v i s i o n wa s s o l ar ge and the ho u s e s s o s im il ar to e a c h o th e r

th a t e v e n th e d e v e lo p e r ’ s b u il d in g s u p e r in te n d e n t h ad difficulty keeping them straig ht. As the trial court pointed out, the issues made it all the more imp orta nt f

or the pa rt ie s to ke e p g oo d r e c or ds

. The trial c ourt initiallycre dited Mr. Moreno’ s testimonyas to all five house s he cla imed he was owed for, as well as Mr. R uiz’s testimonyabout the dama g es he suf fer ed fr om Mr. Moreno’ s failure to complete the wor k on L o t 1 57. Mr. Ruiz ’s Motion to Alter and Amend a lleg ed that the
c ou rt ha d o ve rl oo ke d e vid e nc e in the re c or d whi c h indi c a te d tha t Mr. Mo re no wa s a sk ing to b e pa id twice f or his work o n t h e s am e h ouse. Afte r examining the e vidence , the trial court ag ree d, and enter ed a ne w judg ment with detailed fi n d i n gs o f fa ct, which r educe d the awa rd to eliminate a duplicate r ecove ry

.I nt er es t i ng l y , t he phot ogr aphs t hat M r

. M oren o i nt r od uce d of hous es 15 5 and 201 7 s how s t r uct ur es of s i mi l ar 3
des i gn , but t hey ar e cl ear l y not i dent i cal

. H owever , t he phot os l abel ed by M r

. M oren o as hous es 759 an d 20 10 depi ct t he s ame hous e.
-5- Mr. Moreno arg ues on appea l that the trial court’ s initi al ruling was c orre ct, and that ther e was no double r ecove ry

. He points out sever al wea knesses in the proof

the def endant r elies upon. These include Mr. Posner’s inability to identify

a particular subdivision house from a photo that wa s shown to him, and speculation that Mail B ox 2017 and 2017 Arde n Court might not actua lly be the same house, sinc e more than one stre et in the subdivision might include a house bearing that number. Th e se arg ume nts g o to the we ig ht of the e vid e nc e , but the y are no t su ff ic ie ntl y pr ob a tiv e or

c e rt a in to totallyneg ate Mr. Posner ’s testimony as to the houses in question.

Mr. Moreno use d photogr aphic a nd written t estimony to bolster hi s claim t hat M r. Ruiz owed him money

for brickwork he had done on five houses. Howeve r, our examination of t he five photos that Mr. Moreno pr esente d shows what appe ars to be two pho t o s o f the same house

. Mr. Posner 3 testified that two of the home s for which Mr. Moreno c laimed payment wer e one and the same. The tr i a l c o u r tc r e d i t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f M r

. P o s n e r

a n d a d j u s t e d M r

. M o r e n o ’ s r e c o v e r y a c c o r d i n g l y.
Whe re the tr ia l ju dg e ha s se e n a nd he ard wi tne sse s, its jud g me nt r e g ard ing the ir c re dib ili ty and the weig ht to be given their testimony are acc orded c onsiderable defe renc e on appe al. Clark v. Nashville Machine Ele vator Co. Inc ., 12 9 S. W.3 d 4 2, 46 (T e nn . 2 00 4) ; W ells v. Tenn es s ee Bd. of Re ge nts , 9 S.W .3d 779, 78 3 (Tenn. 1999) ; Tenn-Tex Prope rties v. Brownell-Elec tro, Inc ., 778 S.W .2d 423, 425-26 (Te nn. 1989). Mr. Posner w as the only disinterested witness in this case, and ther e i s no sug g estion from his testimonyor fr om the arg uments of the parties of any bias or improper motive on his pa rt. Ba sed upon our revie w of the entire rec ord, we cannot sa y the evidenc e pr e po nd e rate s a g a ins t th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.

IV. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed. Remand this case to the Circuit Court of Da vid so n Cou nty fo r a ny fu rthe r pr oc e e din g s ne c e ssa ry

. Ta x th e c os ts on app e a l to the app e lla nt, Martin Moreno.

____________________________________ PATRI CI A J . COTTRELL , J UDGE