Court Opinion

ID: 9957407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 15:07:52.920193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:18.515857
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                      CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                              APRIL 4, 2024
                                                                       STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 2024 ND 53

Scott Anthony Dahms,                                  Plaintiff and Appellant
      v.
Legacy Plumbing, LLC,                                Defendant and Appellee

                                No. 20230349

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Steven E. McCullough, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Opinion of the Court by Bahr, Justice.

Adam P. Richard, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.

Lynn M. Mesteth, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellee.
                        Dahms v. Legacy Plumbing
                              No. 20230349

Bahr, Justice.

[¶1] Scott Dahms appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint after the
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Legacy Plumbing, LLC.
We conclude Dahms’s action is for breach of contract. We further conclude the
court erred in granting summary judgment. We deny Legacy’s request for
attorney’s fees. We reverse and remand.

[¶2] Dahms hired Legacy to perform a plumbing rough-in in a house built in
the 1920’s. Due to the age and condition of the piping, Legacy recommended it
replace as much of the piping as possible while the walls were open. Dahms
indicated he wanted to keep the job as cheap as possible and did not want
additional piping replaced. Legacy completed the work on March 8 and 9, 2022.
After Legacy completed the work, Dahms discovered a leak in the bathroom.
On April 15, 2022, Legacy fixed the leak without charging Dahms for the
repair. The leak caused damage to the home.

[¶3] Dahms filed suit in small claims court for the cost to repair the damage
from the leak. In his claim affidavit, Dahms did not articulate a specific cause
of action. Legacy removed the case to district court, filed an answer, and moved
for summary judgment. In support of summary judgment, Legacy submitted
affidavits from three of its employee plumbers. In response, Dahms submitted
his own affidavit; Dahms did not file an amended complaint. The court granted
summary judgment in favor of Legacy and entered judgment dismissing
Dahms’s claim.

[¶4] This Court’s standard of review on summary judgment is well
established:

      In deciding whether the district court appropriately granted
      summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most

                                       1
      favorable to the opposing party, giving that party the benefit of all
      favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the
      record. A party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot
      simply rely on the pleadings or on unsupported conclusory
      allegations. Rather, a party opposing a summary judgment motion
      must present competent admissible evidence by affidavit or other
      comparable means that raises an issue of material fact and must,
      if appropriate, draw the court’s attention to relevant evidence in
      the record raising an issue of material fact. When reasonable
      persons can reach only one conclusion from the evidence, a
      question of fact may become a matter of law for the court to decide.
      A district court’s decision on summary judgment is a question of
      law that we review de novo on the record.

Miller v. Nodak Ins. Co., 2023 ND 37, ¶ 12, 987 N.W.2d 369 (quoting N. Star
Mut. Ins. v. Ackerman, 2020 ND 73, ¶ 6, 940 N.W.2d 857).

                                       A

[¶5] Dahms did not articulate whether he was bringing a contract or tort
claim. His claim affidavit does not use the terms contract, agreement, or
breach. It also does not use the terms tort, negligence, or duty. Addressing this
issue in his reply brief, Dahms asserts he “chose not to amend his complaint
as his claim affidavit clearly shows there is a cause of action for recovery of
damages due to Legacy Plumbing’s conduct.” However, he never identifies the
purported cause of action; he simply argues the issue was one of causation. The
district court did not identify under what cause of action it addressed Dahms’s
claim. Before reviewing the court’s grant of summary judgment, this Court
must determine the nature of Dahms’s claim.

[¶6] “A breach of contract is the nonperformance of a contractual duty when
it is due. The elements of a prima facie case for breach of contract are: (1) the
existence of a contract; (2) breach of the contract; and (3) damages which flow
from the breach.” Bakke v. Magi-Touch Carpet One Floor & Home, Inc., 2018
ND 273, ¶ 13, 920 N.W.2d 726 (internal citations omitted). “The party asserting
a breach of contract must prove all of the elements.” Three Aces Props. LLC v.
United Rentals (N. Am.), Inc., 2020 ND 258, ¶ 10, 952 N.W.2d 64. However, “[a]
breach of contract does not, by itself, provide a basis for a negligence action.”

                                       2
Swanson v. Larson, 2021 ND 216, ¶ 24, 967 N.W.2d 778. “Conduct constituting
a breach of contract does not subject the defendant to an action in tort for
negligence, unless the defendant’s conduct also establishes a breach of an
independent duty that does not arise from the contract.” Id.; see Pioneer Fuels,
Inc. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities, Co., 474 N.W.2d 706, 710 (N.D. 1991).

[¶7] Dahms and Legacy do not dispute they had a contractual agreement for
Legacy to perform plumbing work. The property damage in this case allegedly
comes from Legacy’s work under that agreement. Neither Dahms’s claim
affidavit nor his briefs articulate or allege an independent tort. Therefore, we
conclude Dahms’s action is in contract, and we analyze Dahms’s claim as a
breach of contract claim.

                                       B

[¶8] Dahms argues there is a material dispute as to the source and the cause
of the leak. He further argues the district court improperly determined
credibility when concluding there was not a genuine dispute of material fact.

[¶9] “In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the district court may not
‘weigh the evidence, determine credibility, or attempt to discern the truth of
the matter[.]’” Markgraf v. Welker, 2015 ND 303, ¶ 28, 873 N.W.2d 26 (quoting
Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Creighton, 2013 ND 73, ¶ 11, 830 N.W.2d 556).
However, “mere speculation is not enough to defeat a motion for summary
judgment, and a scintilla of evidence is not sufficient to support a claim.”
Riemers v. Hill, 2016 ND 137, ¶ 21, 881 N.W.2d 624 (quoting Barbie v. Minko
Constr., Inc., 2009 ND 99, ¶ 6, 766 N.W.2d 458).

[¶10] The parties have different views as to the cause and source of the leak.
According to Dahms, the leak was from “the hub connecting the new PVC[.]”
According to Legacy, “The source of the leak was the original lead and Oakum
joint seal inside the main cast iron stack, not the PVC piping or hub part
installed by Legacy.”

                                       3
                                       C

[¶11] Dahms argues his affidavit and pictures create a genuine issue of
material fact regarding the source of the leak. In his affidavit, Dahms explains
he has “12 years of experience as a Class A North Dakota contractor” and has
“been a licensed architect since 2015 in North Dakota.” Dahms states he has
“completely restore[d] two houses built prior to 1900” and is “very familiar with
the inner working of buildings and what is needed to restore them properly
and without failure.” In his affidavit, Dahms states he inspected the leak
himself: “I received a call that a leak had occurred from the homeowner. On
April 11, 2022, I went back to the home and inspected the leak myself. I turned
on the bathroom sink and discovered the leak.” Based on his personal
inspection, Dahms states “[t]he source of the leak was the hub connecting the
new PVC, which [Legacy] installed to the four-inch cast iron stack where the
tie in leaked.” He further states, “The transition between the new pipes and
old pipes, which was installed by [Legacy], is where the leak occurred[.]”

[¶12] Through the affidavits of its plumbers, Legacy asserts the source of the
leak was the original lead and Oakum joint seal inside the main cast iron stack,
not the PVC piping or No Hub Coupling installed by Legacy. Legacy asserts it
did not replace the original lead and Oakum joint seal on the main cast iron
stack. However, Legacy did recommend to Dahms that the original pipes be
replaced due to their age and material, and advised Dahms of the risks of not
replacing them. Legacy states its plumbers identified the source of the leak.
Legacy also explained how its plumbers repaired the leak. Legacy provided
photographs in support of its position.

[¶13] Based on the affidavits and photographs, the district court concluded
there was no genuine issue of fact as to the source of the leak. After discussing
the affidavits and photographs, the court wrote:

      The source of the leak was a lead and Oakum joint, not the PVC
      piping or hub part installed by Legacy. This conclusion was
      reached by a plumbing technician with eight years of experience .
      . . and confirmed by another with 25 years of experience . . . .

                                       4
      Plaintiff drawing an arrow on a photograph does not disprove the
      facts asserted and sworn to by Legacy.

The court emphasized the experience of Legacy’s plumbers, writing they “are
not inexperienced plumbers” and that “[t]he cause of the leak being pipe failure
where the galvanized pipe is sealed in the lead and oakum was confirmed by
three plumbing professionals with extensive training and experience in
[plumbing] (two with 8 years of experience and one with 25 years of
experience).”

[¶14] “A motion for summary judgment is not an opportunity to conduct a mini-
trial.” Hamilton v. Woll, 2012 ND 238, ¶ 13, 823 N.W.2d 754 (quoting Farmers
Union Oil Co. v. Smetana, 2009 ND 74, ¶ 11, 764 N.W.2d 665). “This Court has
repeatedly held that summary judgment is inappropriate if the court must
draw inferences and make findings on disputed facts to support the judgment.”
Id. (quoting Farmers Union Oil, at ¶ 10).

[¶15] Here, it appears the district court conducted a mini-trial, improperly
weighing the evidence and determining witness credibility by considering the
experience of the affiants. Although Legacy’s plumbers had more plumbing
experience than Dahms, and thus arguably were more credible, Dahms
presented first-hand knowledge of the source of the leak. As the party opposing
the motion for summary judgment, Dahms is entitled to have the evidence
viewed in the light most favorable to him, and to be given the benefit of all
favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the record.
Reviewing the record de novo and applying that standard, we conclude a
genuine issue of material fact exists as to the source of the leak.

                                       D

[¶16] The district court also concluded there was no genuine issue of fact as to
the cause of the leak. Dahms asserts “[t]he leak occurred because the plumber
was inexperienced with the technology of the drain and over tightened the
gasket which caused it to fail.” Legacy asserts the cause of the leak was pipe
failure where the galvanized pipe is sealed in the lead and Oakum. The court
primarily based its conclusion regarding the cause of the leak on the source or

                                       5
location of the leak. Because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the
location of the leak, based on our de novo review, we conclude a genuine issue
of material fact exists as to the cause of the leak.

                                       E

[¶17] In its proposal, Legacy expressly noted, “*INCIDENTALS NOT
INCLUDED AND WILL BE QUOTED/APPROVED PRIOR TO
COMPLETION*.” The district court wrote, “There is no dispute that this was
an incidental, as confirmed by [Dahms] himself[.]” Dahms disputes he
conceded the damage was an incidental under the warranty clause. In his
district court brief, Dahms wrote, “Defendant should be responsible for the
incidental damages they caused.” On appeal, Dahms explains, “Dahms merely
used the word incidental to explain that the damages were not intentionally
caused by Legacy Plumbing, however were caused because of Legacy
Plumbing’s negligent actions and failure to test the plumbing system or inspect
the existing plumbing system.”

[¶18] Based on the record, Legacy has not demonstrated the damage due to
the leak is an incidental under the warranty clause. If, as alleged by Dahms,
the leak was at the transition between the new pipes and old pipes installed
by Legacy, the leak would not be incidental to the work Legacy performed
under the contract. Accordingly, based on our de novo review of the record, a
genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the damage was incidental to
Legacy’s work under the agreement.

                                        F

[¶19] Legacy argues we should affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment because Dahms did not identify his cause of action. Legacy did not
raise Dahms’s failure to identify a specific cause of action below, and the court
did not grant summary judgment on that ground. This Court recently
reiterated:

      The purpose of an appeal is to review the actions of the trial court,
      not to grant the appellant an opportunity to develop and expound
      upon new strategies or theories. The requirement that a party first

                                       6
      present an issue to the trial court, as a precondition to raising it
      on appeal, gives that court a meaningful opportunity to make a
      correct decision, contributes valuable input to the process, and
      develops the record for effective review of the decision. It is
      fundamentally unfair to fault the trial court for failing to rule
      correctly on an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider.
      Accordingly, issues or contentions not raised . . . in the district
      court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Albertson v. Albertson, 2023 ND 225, ¶ 8, 998 N.W.2d 811 (quoting Schrodt v.
Schrodt, 2022 ND 64, ¶ 7, 971 N.W.2d 861). We decline to affirm the judgment
on this ground because Legacy did not raise the issue below.

[¶20] Based on our review of the evidence submitted by both parties, and
considering it in the light most favorable to Dahms, we conclude genuine
disputes of material fact exist as to the source and cause of the leak, and that
the district court erred in granting summary judgment.

[¶21] Legacy requests attorney’s fees on appeal under N.D.R.App.P. 38. Rule
38 provides, “If the court determines that an appeal is frivolous, or that any
party has been dilatory in prosecuting the appeal, it may award just damages
and single or double costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees.” “An appeal is
frivolous if it is flagrantly groundless, devoid of merit, or demonstrates
persistence in the course of litigation which could be seen as evidence of bad
faith.” Sadek v. Weber, 2023 ND 14, ¶ 17, 985 N.W.2d 672 (quoting Lucas v.
Porter, 2008 ND 160, ¶ 28, 755 N.W.2d 88). Because we reverse and remand,
we conclude Dahms’s appeal is not frivolous. We deny Legacy’s request for
attorney’s fees.

[¶22] Having considered the parties’ other arguments, we conclude they are
unnecessary to the decision or are without merit. We reverse and remand.

                                       7
[¶23] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
      Daniel J. Crothers
      Lisa Fair McEvers
      Jerod E. Tufte
      Douglas A. Bahr

                            8