Court Opinion

ID: 9906581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 17:04:32.57934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:13.442009
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                            COURT OF APPEAL

                              FIRST CIRCUIT

                             NO. 2022 CA 1241

               WOLFE WASHAUER CONSTRUCTION, LLC

                                  VERSUS

                              FELICIA DART

                                    Judgment Rendered:     DEC 0 4 2023

                             Appealed from the
                          City Court of Baton Rouge
                  In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                              State of Louisiana
                            Docket No. 18- 06850

            The Honorable Judy Moore Vendetto, Judge Presiding

Daniel D. Holliday, III                   Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana                    Wolfe Washauer Construction,
                                          LLC

Marcus J. Plaisance                       Counsel for Defendant/Appellant,
Mark D. Plaisance                         Felicia Dart
Prairieville, Louisiana
Richard Mary
Laura Mary
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

    BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., HOLDRIDGE, WOLFE, MILLER, AND
                                GREENE, JJ.
MILLER, J.

       This matter is before us on appeal by defendant/ appellant, Felicia Dart, from

a judgment of the trial court in favor of plaintiff/appellee, Wolfe Washauer

Construction, LLC. For the reasons that follow, we amend in part and affirm as

amended.

                     FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       On February 22, 2018, Felicia Dart (" Dart") entered into a written contract

with Wolfe Washauer Construction, LLC (" Wolfe") for renovations of the front

porch, carport, and kitchen of Dart' s house located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The

contract stated that the renovations would be done for a total price of $112, 065. 00,

which was to be paid in five installments. Dart made the first, second, and third

payments as provided for in the contract. When invoiced for the fourth installment,

Dart refused to pay because of the amount of outstanding work left to be done.

Dart subsequently fired Wolfe and did not pay the remainder due on the contract.

        On September 27, 2018, Wolfe filed a petition for breach of contract and

damages, seeking $ 24, 243. 471 for breach of contract, all other damages, all costs of

the proceedings, legal interest from the date of judicial demand until paid, and all

other just and equitable relief. On October 22, 2018, Dart filed an answer wherein

she denied Wolfe' s allegations and contended that Wolfe did not substantially

complete the work, portions of the work done by Wolfe were defective, and Wolfe

did not pay subcontractors and materialmen. A trial was held on October 18, 2021,

and the court ruled in favor of Wolfe, and against Dart, in the amount of

 21, 178. 47, together with legal interest thereon from the date of judicial demand

until paid, and all costs of the proceedings. The judgment was signed by the trial

court on April 1, 2022.

1 The amount unpaid on the original contract was $ 28, 065. 00. There was $ 7, 934. 01 in
allowances owed to Dart, and Wolfe alleges that Dart owed it $4, 112. 48 pursuant to extra work
done on the project. Thus, Wolfe contended that the amount due under the contract was
 24, 243. 47.

                                              2
      Dart filed a motion for new trial. After a telephone status conference, the

trial court denied the motion for new trial. A judgment to that effect was signed on

August 11,   2022. Subsequently, Dart filed a motion and order for appeal, which

was signed by the trial court on September 13, 2022.

                            ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

        Dart contends that ( 1)   the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the

certificate of occupancy; ( 2)    the trial court erred in denying Dart' s motion for

involuntary dismissal; and ( 3) the trial court erred by awarding Wolfe payment

under the contract rather than offsetting such payment by Dart' s expense to

remedy.

                                     DISCUSSION

        In her first assignment of error, Dart challenges an evidentiary ruling of the

trial court. If a trial court commits an evidentiary error that interdicts its factfinding

process, this court must conduct a de novo review. Landry v. City of Mandeville,

2021- 1362 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 27/ 22), 342 So. 3d 337, 346, writ denied, 2022-

00828 ( La. 9/ 27/ 22), 347 So. 3d 155. Thus, any alleged evidentiary errors must be

addressed first on appeal, inasmuch as a finding of error may affect the applicable

standard of review. Id.

        At trial, Wolfe attempted to admit Exhibit P- 6,        an   email   chain   with   a

purported copy of the certificate of occupancy attached, through the testimony of

Wolfe     Washauer (" Washauer"),      the   owner   of Wolfe. Dart objected to the

introduction of the email chain and the certificate of occupancy as hearsay and

argued that a representative was needed to authenticate the document. Dart

contended that a proper foundation was not laid under La. C.E. art. 803 because

there was no testimony that the certificate of occupancy was a governmental

                                             3
document from anyone qualified to testify to its creation.'                In response, Wolfe

argued that the certificate of occupancy fell under two exceptions to the hearsay

rule, the records of regularly conducted business activity exception and the public

records   and   reports      exception.   The trial court overruled Dart' s objection and

admitted the certificate of occupancy under the public records and reports

exception. See La. C.E. art. 803( 8). Dart then made a general objection as to any

testimony regarding the certificate of occupancy.

       It is well- settled that a trial court is afforded vast discretion with regard to

evidentiary rulings, and the court' s decision to admit or deny evidence will not be

disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Cantrelley. Lafourche

Parish Council, 2021- 0678 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 211122), 340 So. 3d 1059, 1076. Dart

contends that the trial court erred in admitting the certificate of occupancy because

it was not authenticated or self -authenticating under Chapter 9 of the Louisiana

Code of Evidence and it does not fall within the public records and reports

exception or the records of regularly conducted business activity exception under

La. C. E. art. 803.

       Authentication of evidence is required in order for evidence to be admissible

at trial. See La. C. E. art. 901. Because authentication of evidence is a condition

precedent to admissibility, an exhibit that is not authenticated does not constitute

competent evidence. See La. C. E. art. 901;            Price v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co.,

2004- 0227 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 27/ 05), 915 So. 2d 816, 822, writ denied, 2005-

1390 ( La.      1127/ 06),    922   So.   2d   543.   Authentication is a process whereby

something is shown to be what it purports to be. See La. C.E. art. 901. Evidence

2 As is true of the exception for business records, the public records exception is premised
generally on the assumption that either the record keeper, the record maker, or the person who
supplied the information contained in the record had firsthand knowledge of the facts placed
there. Thus, at least as regards information falling within the " regular activities" and " matters
observed" categories of Parts ( i) and ( ii) of Subparagraph ( a), this Article implicitly imposes a
requirement of firsthand knowledge on the part of the person who was the source of the
information, and a requirement that he have been acting routinely on behalf of the agency in
making the report. La. C. E. art. 803, Comments to Exception (8)-- 1988( d).

                                                  4
must either be authenticated as provided in La. C. E. art. 901, or it must be self -

authenticating. Price, 915 So. 2d at 822; see La. C.E. art. 902. Washauer is not a

proper witness to authenticate the copy of the certificate of occupancy. He did not

create the email or the certificate of occupancy.

        Additionally, while the certificate of occupancy in Exhibit P- 6 appears to be
a document from East Baton Rouge, Permits and Inspection Division, City                        of

Baton Rouge -         Parish of East Baton Rouge, it does not meet the necessary

requirements to be self -authenticating. For example, it does not contain a seal, it

does not contain a signature of an officer or employee in his official capacity, it

was not certified as being the original by an officer or employee, nor does it fall

within any other class of self -authenticating documents under La. C.E. art. 902.

Therefore, we find that Wolfe failed to authenticate the certificate of occupancy

contained in Exhibit P- 6, and the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it.

         Yet, in spite of the jockeying to admit or exclude the purported certificate,

the fact that a certificate had been issued was not in dispute. Both parties testified

to the fact that a certificate of occupancy was issued.3 Even so, the receipt of a

certificate of occupancy is not equivalent to a finding of substantial performance.

For    example,       a home     may be occupied for the entirety              of certain    home

improvement projects even while the work is not substantially performed. Here,

the certificate of occupancy is relevant because it was an agreed upon benchmark

for payment        under   the    contract.4 However,      the   certificate   does   not    prove

substantial performance. Therefore, any error in admitting the certificate at trial did

3
    During the trial, Dart was asked, " Now, you got the certificate of occupancy right?" Dart
          Correct."
replied, `=

a The contract provided:

         The forth [ sic] payment of $25, 000. 00 Dollars when Certificate of Occupancy is
         issued.

                                                E
not interdict the factfinding process and does not obligate this court to conduct a de

novo review.

       In her second assignment of error, Dart contends that the trial court erred in

denying her motion for involuntary dismissal. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure
article 1672( B) states:

       In an action tried by the court without a jury, after the plaintiff has
       completed the presentation of his evidence,                  any   party,    without

       waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not
       granted, may move for a dismissal of the action as to him on the

       ground that upon the facts and law, the plaintiff has shown no right to
       relief. The court may then determine the facts and render judgment
       against the plaintiff and in favor of the moving party or may decline to
       render any judgment until the close of all the evidence.

       Article 1672 affords the trial judge discretion to render or to decline to

render any judgment until the close of all evidence. Smith v. Gramercy Ins. Co.,

2015- 0845 ( La.    App.   I"   Cir.   3110116),      189   So.   3d   497,    500.      The purely

discretionary decision of a trial court to deny a motion for involuntary dismissal at

the close of a plaintiffs case and then render a decision after hearing all of the

evidence presented in the matter leaves nothing for this court to review on appeal

concerning the motion for involuntary dismissal. Escobar v. Cajun Operating

Company,     2016- 0558 ( La.    App.     I"   Cir.    12122116),      209    So.   3d    198,   200.

Accordingly, we find no merit to this assignment of error.

       In her third assignment of error, Dart contends that the trial court erred in

awarding Wolfe full payment under the contract rather than reducing the payment

by Dart' s expense to remedy since she was required to hire additional workers to

complete the work Wolfe failed to complete. Under Louisiana jurisprudence, a

building contractor or subcontractor may recover the contract price even though

defects and omissions are present after he has substantially performed the building

contract. Cosman v. Cabrera, 2009- 0265 ( La. App. 15t Cir. 10123109), 28 So. 3d

10753 1080. However, where the owner presents evidence of the cost of completion
of the work or correction of defective work, the contract price may be reduced by

that amount. Id. at 1080.

           Substantial performance" means that the construction is fit for the purposes

intended despite the deficiencies; this is typically a question of fact for the trial

judge.' Mayeauxy. McInnis, 2000- 1540 ( La. App. I" Cir. 9128101), 809 So. 2d

310, 313, writ denied, 2001- 3286 ( La. 318102), 810 So. 2d 1164. The factors to

consider in determining whether there has been substantial performance include

the extent of the defect or non- performance, the degree to which the purpose of the

contract is defeated, the ease of correction, and the use or benefit to the owner of

the work already performed. Cosman, 28 So. 3d at 1080- 81. The contractor bears

the burden of proving substantial performance. Garcia Roofing Replacement, LLC

v. McCain, 2022- 0233 ( La. App. 1'        Cir. 9116122), 352 So. 3d 1005, 1009.

       In making its ruling, the trial court apparently based its finding of substantial

performance largely on the fact that a certificate of occupancy was issued, while

noting several inadequacies in the work. As previously explained, the issuance of a

certificate of occupancy in and of itself does not prove substantial performance.

The trial court' s finding of substantial performance of the contract based primarily

on the     certificate was erroneous. However,          in our review of the record in its

entirety, we find a reasonable factual basis to conclude, as did the trial court, that

the project was substantially performed.

       At the trial, Washauer testified as to the work completed and the work which

remained unfinished. Washauer testified that the scope of the project included

adding a carport, adding a front porch, and closing in the existing front porch.

Wolfe introduced an estimate spreadsheet with the cost of the work to be done. The

5 To reverse a fact finder' s determination, an appellate court must review the record in its
entirety and find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding and further
determine that the record establishes that the fact finder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.
Jackson v. Tulane Medical Center Hosp. and Clinic, 2005- 1594 ( La. 10117106), 942 So. 2d 509,
512- 13.

                                                 7
estimate included sitework, foundation,              framing,    electrical,   HVAC, plumbing,

shutters,   roof,   windows,    exterior doors,       exterior   walls,   insulation,   sheetrock,

painting, interior doors and trim, flooring, cabinets, bathroom finishes, appliances,

driveway, and clean up. The drawings depicted the same scope of work provided

for in the estimate. The price of the entire project totaled $ 112, 065. 00, and the

benchmarks for payment for the second and third installments were the completion

of the framing and the sheetrock installation. That work was completed and Dart

made   those payments.       Further, Washauer testified that the HVAC work was

completed.

       Washauer also testified that Wolfe installed the flooring and shoe molding in

the house. However, Dart introduced pictures of her home that showed the

subflooring was still visible in some places. When Washauer was asked about the

unfinished floors,    he alleged that he did not recognize the flooring. He further

stated that the subflooring " could be somebody' s finished floor if they wanted the

Advantech [ subflooring]."       He also testified that the unfinished work included

caulking, painting, installing brick steps, adjusting the cabinets, framing for and

installing a window, and installing the backsplash.6

       Dart also testified as to the work completed and the work which remained.

During her testimony, more than twenty photos were introduced to prove the

necessity of completion. She stated that the roofing and carport were completed,

although she was not happy with how the carport posts were situated and she had

issues with the roof. Dart further stated that, when the certificate of occupancy was

issued, some of the subflooring was still exposed, the porch was not painted, the

paint on the outside of the house was not satisfactory, the kitchen window and

backsplash were not installed, gaps were not caulked and paint was missing around

6 In an email dated August 15, 2018, Washauer stated that the following work still needed to be
done: paint the front porch, install the gutters, install the drainage, install the front door knob,
and punch out the house.

                                                 8
the house, the brick steps were not installed, the chandelier was not centered, and

drainage was not done. She also stated that there was work included under the

contract that she paid for but was not done. That work included: removing old

concrete and pouring new concrete, windows that were taken out of the design,

plumbing for running gas lines, and field dirt.

        While we agree with the trial court that there was substantial performance,

we find that there were deficiencies and incomplete work that Dart had to remedy,

and the trial court erred in failing to reduce the amount due on the contract. Thus,

Wolfe may recover the outstanding amount due on the contract reduced by Dart' s

cost of completion of the work or correction of defective work.

        Initially, Dart is entitled to a credit for unused allowances. On August 6,

2018, Washauer emailed Dart and stated that Wolfe owed her credits on her final

payment for unused allowances.'          He indicated that Dart was owed the following

credits: $   1, 000. 00 for electrical; $ 2, 500.00   for plumbing; $ 934. 01 for hardware;

and $   3, 500. 00 for appliances. The total amount of the credits for the unused

allowances is $ 7, 934. 01.

        A party seeking to have the contract price reduced by an amount to perfect

or complete work done under the contract bears the burden of proving the necessity

of such perfection or completion and its cost. O & M Const. Inc. v. State Div. of

Admin., 91- 1136 ( La. App. 1"         Cir. 3/ 2/ 91), 576 So. 2d 1030, 1039, writ denied,

 La. 1991),       581    So. 2d 691.   At the trial, Dart introduced emails,          photos   of

incomplete work around the house, photos of damage to the house during

 Also, in the email dated August 6, 2018, Washauer stated that Dart owed Wolfe $4, 112. 48 for
work that was outside the scope of the contract. However, Washauer testified multiple times that
if additional work was required, a change order had to be executed. The need for a change order
to execute additional work is also provided for in the contract. Washauer testified that if he was
able to do the job for less, it was the same price, and if he went over, he was responsible. When
asked more specifically about items that Dart paid for that were not completed, Washauer
testified that "[ t] his is not
                          a Cost Plus contract it' s a lump sum and that' s ... and Ms. Dart is
trying to make this a Cost Plus contract and it' s a lump sum." No change order wherein the
parties agreed to this additional work being done was executed. Thus, we find Washauer' s
contention that he is owed $4, 112. 48 to be unsupported.

                                                 7
construction, a lien placed on the house by the company who sold and installed the

kitchen countertop, and a spreadsheet, receipts, invoices, credit card statements,

and copied checks. These exhibits were admitted by the trial court. However, the

trial court found that while Dart provided a list of items that she paid for after

Wolfe was fired, there were no witnesses to tell the court the amount it would have

cost to redo or complete the job.

          The trial court erred in finding that Dart did not prove the necessity of

completion and its cost. We find that the deficient and incomplete work consisted

of installing a window, installing brick steps, installing gutters, and cleaning. The

parties agreed to the fact that the window and the brick steps were outstanding.

Further,      the gutters and cleaning were both provided for in the contract, not

completed by Wolfe, and subsequently completed by Dart.

          In addition to proving the necessity of completion, Dart met her burden of

proving the cost of completion. She provided evidence of the amounts she incurred

and payments she made to complete the outstanding work by introducing a

spreadsheet,        receipts,    invoices,    credit        card   statements,   and   copied   checks.

Washauer did not dispute these amounts. She paid $ 975. 00 for the window,

     3, 250. 00 for the brick steps, $ 1, 047. 20              for the gutters,   and $   1, 950. 00   for

cleanings. The total amount that Dart paid to complete the outstanding work was

     7, 222.20. 9 We note that this amount appears to be much less than what was due

under the contract to complete what was clearly unfinished. Since Dart proved that

S$
      1, 950.00 included " floor boards, attic cleaning, and etc."

9 There are other expenses that Dart incurred to fix and complete her renovation project.
However, those other expenses were either not a part of the contract or it is indeterminable if
they were a part of the contract. For example, Dart paid $ 9, 240. 00 for drainage, a walking path,
and landscaping. Drainage was part of the scope of work under the contract, but the walking path
and landscaping were not. Because there is no individual itemization of each item, we cannot
determine how much Dart paid for drainage. When the owner fails to establish the cost of
correcting any detects, she may not recover therefor. Garcia Roofing_Rel2lacement, LLC, 352 So.
3d at 1011. Thus, this amount is not included in the amount that Dart paid to complete the work.

                                                       10
the cost of completion of the work was $ 7, 222. 20, the contract price will be

reduced by that amount.

        In summary, Dart did not pay the fourth or fifth payments due under the
contract, which total $ 28, 065. 00.   The total amount of the credits for the unused

allowances is $ 7, 934. 01. When the credits for the unused allowances are subtracted

from the outstanding amount due on the contract, there remains a balance of

 20, 130. 99 due under the contract. When the cost of completion of the work,

 7, 222. 20, is subtracted from the amount due on the contract, $ 20, 130. 99, there is

a remaining balance of $12, 908. 79 due on the contract. Therefore, after the credits

for the unused allowances and the cost of completion of the work are taken into

consideration, Dart owes Wolfe $ 12, 908. 79 on the contract.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Based on the above and foregoing reasons, the April 1, 2022 judgment of the

trial court is amended to provide that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, Wolfe

Washauer Construction, LLC, and against defendant, Felicia Dart, in the amount of

TWELVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHT DOLLARS AND 79100

  12, 908.79) together with legal interest thereon from the date of judicial demand

until paid. The judgment is affirmed as amended. Costs of this appeal are assessed

one- half against Wolfe Washauer Construction, LLC and one- half against Felicia

Dart.

        AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

                                             11