Opinion ID: 852883
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Monetary Judgment against Gills

Text: Onyx further argues that, in challenging the trial court judgment, the Gills' arguments are all directed to the mechanic's lien issue, and that the Gills have not raised any arguments that the money judgment entered against them is incorrect. Brief of Appellee/Cross-Appellant Onyx at 6. Onyx urges that, even if the mechanic's lien is declared invalid, the monetary judgment should be affirmed. The Gills respond by arguing that there was no contract between Onyx and the Gills, and that Onyx was looking solely to be paid by Pollerts or the insurance company. Onyx essentially admits the Gills' claim. At the time of the bench trial of Onyx's claims against Pollerts and the Gills, Onyx's opening statement declared that there were two parts to this case ... a mechanics lien that we are foreclosing on and ... [t]he second issue ... whether or not Mr. Pollert is responsible for paying the bill that was done for the demolition of the hotel. Transcript at 3-4. Onyx did not then describe any claim for breach of contract against the Gills. At the close of evidence, rather than closing arguments, the trial court requested post-trial briefs. In its initial post-trial brief Onyx clearly indicated that its claims for breach of contract and equitable estoppel were directed solely at Pollerts. Other than its request for foreclosure of its mechanics lien, Onyx's only claim against the Gills for monetary damages was based on its alternative claim that Pollert was acting as an agent of the Gills. Onyx opens the argument section of its post-trial brief as follows: Onyx believes that the evidence clearly demonstrates that [Pollerts] are responsible for paying the invoice. Two different legal theories support that conclusion: breach of contract and equitable estoppel. If [Pollerts] are not responsible because Pollert was acting as an agent of the Gills, then the Gills would be responsible for payment and the mechanic's lien should be foreclosed. Appellee/Cross-Appellant's Supplemental Appendix at 3. The Onyx brief specifically presented argument as to three claims: breach of contract, equitable estoppel, and mechanic's lien. The first two sought relief only from Pollerts, and the last sought foreclosure of the lien against the Gills. In its concluding paragraph, after seeking monetary judgment against Pollerts, Onyx added: If the court should find that Pollert was acting as agent for the Gills, then this court should enter judgment against Brent and Marina Gill in the amount of $143,800.00... Id. at 5. In a subsequent post-trial reply brief, Onyx argued: Everyone, including Pollert, expected the insurance company to pay the demolition costs. Pollert sent the quote from Onyx and the final bill to the insurance company.... When Onyx stopped work temporarily, Pollert called and insisted that Onyx continue working on the project because the building was unsafe and created a liability hazard for which the insurance company would have to pay. At that time, he told Gregg Pardieck that Onyx would be paid, knowing that Gregg was expecting the insurance company to pay him. There was a meeting of the minds that Onyx would demolish the building and that the insurance company would pay for it. Appellants' Appendix at 478-79. The Onyx post-trial reply brief also argued the theory of equitable estoppel, but not as against the Gills. It urged that Onyx had relied on false statements of Fred Pollert and that Pollert should now be estopped from claiming that he is not responsible for paying Onyx pursuant to the agreement he created with Onyx. Id. at 480. Finally, in its Appellee/Cross-Appellant's brief, Onyx states: Onyx believed and argued at trial that its contract was with Mr. Pollert and that Mr. Pollert should be responsible for payment based on principles of contract or estoppel. The trial court did not find Mr. Pollert responsible. The only way for the trial court to find that Mr. Pollert was not liable and that the Gills were liable is if Mr. Pollert was acting as the agent for the Gills and had authority to contract on their behalf. Because Mr. Pollert was acting as agent for the Gills when he assented to the work, the Gills are responsible for the agreements Mr. Pollert made on their behalf. Brief of Appellee/Cross-Appellant at 5. The trial court made no findings of fact supporting its judgment for Onyx against the Gills. At trial and on appeal, Onyx has asserted no claim for monetary damages against the Gills, except for its mechanic's lien claim and its theory that Pollerts was an agent of the Gills. Having found, supra, that there is insufficient evidence to support Onyx's mechanic's lien claim and its theory that Fred Pollert was acting as the Gills' agent, we conclude that the trial court's monetary judgment in favor of Onyx against the Gills is clearly erroneous, and we reverse.