Court Opinion

ID: 9399181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 14:06:25.150088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.627038
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MAY 26, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals
                               NO. 2022-CA-0792-MR

REMINISCENT HERB FARM,
NURSERY & LANDSCAPING, INC.                                            APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE JAMES R. SCHRAND, II, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 20-CI-00888

ALAN SCHIRTZINGER                                                        APPELLEE

                                     OPINION
                                    AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: EASTON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

EASTON, JUDGE: Reminiscent Herb Farm, Nursery & Landscaping, Inc.

(“RHF”), appeals the Judgment of the Boone Circuit Court entered after a bench

trial on a claim for breach of a warranty in the building of stone retaining walls.

Finding no error, we affirm.
               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

             In 2001, Alan Schirtzinger (“Schirtzinger”) hired RHF to build two

tiered stone retaining walls on his property. RHF did so at a cost of just over

$15,000. The only written documentation of the contract is by invoice. There was

no written warranty statement. The parties offered opposing testimony on whether

RHF gave an oral warranty.

             In 2007, Schirtzinger noticed bowing of the lower wall and asked

RHF to return to repair the wall. RHF made the requested repairs. The invoice for

the later repairs recognizes a warranty, providing a discount for the work

performed.

             Over ten years after this repair work the lower wall failed with a

partial collapse. The higher wall also showed signs of its eventual failure. When

RHF did not respond to requests to repair or replace the walls, Schirtzinger

retained an engineer to assess the cause of the failure and hired another builder to

remove the existing structures and replace them. With some reduction for work

not directly pertaining to the walls, the cost of the new walls was over $64,000.

             The circuit court conducted a bench trial on May 3, 2022.

Considering the evidence at this trial, the circuit court found RHF had provided a

warranty and breached that warranty. The circuit court awarded damages of

                                         -2-
$20,233.33. RHF filed this appeal. RHF challenges the findings of the circuit

court as to the warranty and argues the award of damages was speculative.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

             Our review is constrained by CR 52.01. The circuit court’s findings

of fact may be set aside only if clearly erroneous. The same rule recognizes the

opportunity of the trial judge to assess the credibility of witnesses in making

findings of fact. Reversal occurs only when the record contains no substantial

evidence to support the findings. Slone v. Calhoun, 386 S.W.3d 745, 747 (Ky.

App. 2012). We review questions of law de novo. Id.

                                    ANALYSIS

             The circuit court made two disputed findings of fact. The first was

that a warranty existed. Based upon the facts about the failure of the walls, the

circuit court concluded RHF breached that warranty. The second factual

contention is the amount of damages awarded.

             As to the existence of the warranty, Schirtzinger testified that Dick

Jansen (“Jansen”), a representative of RHF, stated a lifetime warranty except for

the grass seeded as part of the project. Jansen explained to Schirtzinger customers

rarely water new grass appropriately, and that is why no warranty is provided for

it. This is a rather specific memory of the conversation. In contrast, Jansen

                                         -3-
testified that he did not state any warranty “to the best of my recollection.” Jansen

admitted that recent health issues may have impacted his memory.

             Subsequent interaction between the parties included recognition of the

warranty. When the lower wall needed repair in 2007, RHF repaired it. On the

invoice for this work, RHF provided a “credit for warranty work.” The effect of

the credit was a one-third reduction in the repair costs.

             When we examine the evidence, we see the circuit court agreed with

Schirtzinger about the oral warranty stated and found the warranty existed. The

details of the warranty, such as what it provided with respect to damages in case of

breach were not stated, but here the circuit court relied upon the course of dealing

between these parties. The 2007 warranty work confirmed the existence of the

warranty and provided proof of its terms. The circuit court properly relied upon

this course of dealing in these circumstances. See Giem v. Searles, 470 S.W.2d

327 (Ky. 1971).

             The parties argued about the cause of the wall failure. Jansen said he

recommended Schirtzinger get an engineer to address the wall construction before

the original walls were erected. The walls were near a swimming pool and would

have to retain steep earthen embankments. According to Jansen, Schirtzinger

rejected the substantial extra cost of an engineer and decided to build the walls,

understanding they would not last.

                                          -4-
             Jansen could provide no documentation of contact with an engineer.

Jansen explained he had built between 500 and 600 walls. He had requested

engineer involvement in only fifteen to twenty of his projects. Schirtzinger

testified there was no discussion about an engineer. Regardless, RHF still accepted

the work and built the walls.

             Testimony from the builder of the replacement walls indicated the

walls built by RHF were faulty. They did not contain any mechanism to secure

them to the retained dirt. Drainage was not sufficiently diverted to avoid damage

to the walls. On the other hand, RHF insisted Schirtzinger caused some of the

damage by how he trimmed grass and weeds near the base of the walls, exposing

the foundation.

             RHF questioned the damages claimed. Some work in the replacement

estimate was not directly related to the walls. For example, there was a provision

about some work near the pool. On the other hand, RHF conceded a nearby

separate concrete structure could have been damaged to access and perform the

necessary work. This could be a legitimate part of the claim.

             Schirtzinger documented the repair and replacement work at a total of

$64,600. The circuit court reduced this amount to eliminate unrelated work. The

reduction also may have acknowledged any part Schirtzinger may have played by

his maintenance of the wall. The circuit court then applied the course of dealing of

                                        -5-
the parties as to the terms of the warranty. A one third credit applied to the

reduced amount of $60,700 resulted in the damages awarded of $20,233.33.

             This decision does not evidence speculation. It is rather a proper

application of the evidence to make a finding of fact based upon that evidence.

The circuit court committed no error in the calculation of damages. The damages

are supported by the evidence in the record. The amount awarded is within the

permissible amounts claimed and proven.

             We note the argument by RHF of a “windfall.” RHF argues

Schirtzinger received the benefit of a wall for seventeen years. Schirtzinger then

receives damages in an amount greater than the original cost of the walls built by

RHF. This argument ignores the reality of inflation in building costs over the last

twenty years. The parties presented evidence about the costs in 2001 and the costs

in 2018.

             In hindsight, RHF may have chosen to insist on engineered plans

before building these walls. But instead RHF went forward with this project. As

found by the circuit court, RHF provided a lifetime warranty. The walls failed.

Based upon the course of dealing between these parties, the circuit court awarded

proper damages.

                                         -6-
                                 CONCLUSION

            The findings of fact of the circuit court are not clearly erroneous. The

circuit court committed no error of law. The Judgment of the Boone Circuit Court

is AFFIRMED.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Todd VanDerVeer McMurtry                  C. Ed Massey
Steven H. Taylor                          Erlanger, Kentucky
Fort Mitchell, Kentucky

                                        -7-