Court Opinion

ID: 9894850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 14:10:18.041653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:51.701592
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: OCTOBER 27, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-1313-MR

ATKINS HOMES, LLC                                                    APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE JULIE M. GOODMAN, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 20-CI-03574

HOPE VEINOT                                                            APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

DIXON, JUDGE: Atkins Homes, LLC, (Atkins) appeals from the order

dismissing its claims against Hope Veinot, entered by the Fayette Circuit Court on

October 10, 2022. After a careful review of the record, briefs, and applicable law,

we affirm.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

             In November 2018, Veinot moved into a rental property owned by

Atkins and made a deposit of $1,395. Although Veinot and Atkins attempted to
enter into a written lease agreement, they did not agree to the terms. Veinot made

monthly rent payments of $1,395 – with occasional $50 late fees – until June 2020.

Veinot also made a down payment of $7,700, hoping she might rent-to-own.

             In August 2019, Atkins claims it gave notice to Veinot that it was

increasing her rent to $1,550, but the only evidence in the record supporting this

claim is the Affidavit of Ryan Atkins, a member of Atkins, and emails dated more

than a year later. Veinot did not agree to this increase and continued to pay rent at

the original rate. Atkins accepted and cashed Veinot’s rent checks.

             In July 2020, Veinot emailed Atkins that she would like to continue

renting at the rate of $1,395 a month and that Atkins could keep part of her down

payment as her July rent. However, she requested a refund of the remainder of her

down payment as she was unable to purchase the property. In September 2020,

Atkins provided notice to Veinot of the termination of her tenancy for failure to

pay rent, filed a forcible detainer action, and kept Veinot’s deposit and down

payment. In October 2020, the Fayette District Court continued the case at

Veinot’s request until January 2021. In December 2020, Veinot vacated the

property, and the forcible detainer action was dismissed.

             In November 2020, Atkins filed the case herein, alleging breach of

contract/tenancy, unjust enrichment, and willful holdover, and claiming it is

entitled to a landlord’s lien and attorney’s fees. Veinot was served but did not

                                         -2-
respond initially. In January 2021, Atkins moved the trial court for default

judgment, but its motion was denied the following month because “the record does

not contain proof that [Atkins] provided [Veinot] with written notice as required by

KRS[1] § 383.660 and § 383.695.”

                Nothing further occurred in this case until the trial court entered a

notice to dismiss for lack of prosecution in 2022. Atkins then renewed its motion

for default judgment – moving alternately for summary judgment. After a hearing,

at which both parties were present and evidence was submitted, the trial court

dismissed Atkins’ claims. This appeal followed.

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

                Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, stipulations, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” CR2 56.03.

“[T]he proper function of summary judgment is to terminate litigation when, as a

matter of law, it appears it would be impossible for the respondent to produce

evidence at the trial warranting a judgment in his favor.” Steelvest, Inc. v.

Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991).

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
2
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                            -3-
             An appellate court’s role in reviewing an award of summary judgment

is to determine whether the trial court erred in finding no genuine issue of material

fact exists, and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996). A grant of summary

judgment is reviewed de novo because factual findings are not at issue. Pinkston v.

Audubon Area Cmty. Servs., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 188, 189 (Ky. App. 2006) (citing

Blevins v. Moran, 12 S.W.3d 698 (Ky. App. 2000)).

             An appellate court reviews a trial court’s findings of fact only for

clear error. Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d 909, 915 (Ky. 2004); Univ. of

Louisville v. Eckerle, 580 S.W.3d 546, 551 (Ky. 2019) (citation omitted) (“Any

finding of fact by the trial court is entitled to deference and will not be disturbed

absent clear error.”). When reviewing a lower court’s interpretation of an oral

agreement, the standard of review is de novo. Frear v. P.T.A. Indus., Inc., 103

S.W.3d 99, 105 (Ky. 2003).

                                 LEGAL ANALYSIS

             On appeal, Atkins first argues the trial court erred by not entering a

default judgment against Veinot. Atkins claims its first motion for default

judgment should have been granted due to Veinot’s failure to appear or file any

pleadings, evidence, or other documents with the trial court. It also asserts the

grounds stated for the trial court’s first denial of its request for default – Atkins’

                                           -4-
failure to submit proof of notices given to Veinot under KRS 383.660 and KRS

383.695 – was improper.

             However, Atkins’ argument overlooks the portion of CR 55.01 that

provides:

             If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to
             carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to
             determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth
             of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation
             of any other matter, the court, without a jury, shall
             conduct such hearings[.]

“In other words, the court may need to conduct a hearing[.]” Key v. Mariner Fin.,

LLC, 617 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Ky. App. 2020).

             In the case herein, after Atkins renewed its motion for default

judgment, a hearing was held at which the parties appeared and evidence was

submitted. The trial court then treated the matter as one for summary judgment.

The trial court determined – supported by substantial evidence – that the parties

entered an oral month-to-month lease in November 2018 setting rent at $1,395.

Although Atkins attempted to increase the amount of rent to $1,550 in August

2019, this change was rejected by Veinot. Atkins directs us to an Ohio case that

supports its proposition that a landlord may unilaterally raise the rent, but it has not

directed us to any corresponding Kentucky law.

             Under Kentucky law, oral contracts – such as the one at issue herein –

are typically enforceable, notwithstanding the absence of a signed writing. Frear,

                                          -5-
103 S.W.3d at 105. Indeed, a valid oral contract, like a written contract, requires

“offer and acceptance, full and complete terms, and consideration.” Coleman v.

Bee Line Courier Serv., Inc., 284 S.W.3d 123, 125 (Ky. 2009). Herein, substantial

evidence supports the trial court’s findings of the oral contract’s substance.

             Following the hearing and submission of evidence, the trial court

totaled the monies paid from Veinot to Atkins ($36,545.50) as evidenced by copies

of cashed checks and an account statement from Venmo for the month Veinot used

it to pay rent, and the amount Veinot owed Atkins for rent and late fees ($36,420),

and found the difference ($125.50) owed to Veinot. Based on these calculations,

the trial court concluded that Atkins’ claims against Veinot failed. Its findings

were supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the trial court was justified

in not granting a default judgment – or summary judgment – to Atkins.

             Atkins next argues the trial court erred in dismissing its claims and

failing to award it the requested relief. Atkins claims the parties had only verbally

agreed for Veinot’s rent to be $1,395 for the first three months, as stated by Ryan

in his affidavit. This, however, is contradicted by the record.

             Veinot consistently asserted in her communications with Atkins that

her rent was $1,395. That is the amount she paid from November 2018 until June

2020. Atkins admits in its pleadings that it did not attempt to raise the rent until

August 2019. It also accepted Veinot’s rent checks and cashed them without

                                          -6-
objection or further action for the following year. It was not until August 31, 2020,

that it informed Veinot of its intent to use her down payment and deposit to cover

its proposed rental and deposit rate increases. The trial court found there was an

implied contract between the parties in the form of a month-to-month, periodic

tenancy at the rate of $1,395 per month and the parties never mutually agreed to an

increase.

             “Appellate review of a trial court’s factual findings is governed by the

clearly erroneous standard; factual determinations supported by substantial

evidence will not be disturbed.” Legg v. Commonwealth, 500 S.W.3d 837, 839

(Ky. App. 2016). Because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings,

we will not disturb them.

             Atkins further contends that the trial court erred in determining that

Veinot’s holdover was not willful. However, Veinot overpaid rent. KRS

383.695(4) provides that “If the tenant remains in possession without the

landlord’s consent after expiration of the term of the rental agreement or its

termination, the landlord may bring an action for possession[.]” It further states,

“if the tenant’s holdover is willful and not in good faith the landlord may also

recover an amount not more than three (3) months’ periodic rent or threefold the

actual damages sustained by him, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney’s

                                         -7-
fees.” Id. (emphasis added). Here, because Veinot overpaid and acted in good

faith, she does not meet the legal requirements to be considered a willful holdover.

             Atkins also argues the trial court erred in not awarding it damages and

attorney’s fees “due to the federal moratorium on evictions then in effect.” For the

reasons previously discussed, Atkins was not entitled to damages or attorney’s

fees; thus, any potential error of referencing the federal moratorium was harmless.

(“The doctrine of nonprejudicial error, sometimes called ‘harmless error,’ is that in

determining whether an error is prejudicial, an appellate court must consider

whether on the whole case there is a substantial possibility that the result would

have been any different.” Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 646 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Ky.

1983). Just as in McIntosh, “careful examination of the record does not indicate

that any different result would have been achieved in this case.” Id.)

             Atkins’ final argument is that the trial court improperly dismissed its

unjust enrichment claim. “For a party to prevail under the theory of unjust

enrichment, they must prove three elements: (1) benefit conferred upon defendant

at plaintiff’s expense; (2) a resulting appreciation of benefit by defendant; and (3)

inequitable retention of benefit without payment for its value.” Jones v. Sparks,

297 S.W.3d 73, 78 (Ky. App. 2009). Based on the foregoing – and the fact that

Veinot overpaid Atkins – the trial court did not err in finding that Atkins failed to

state a claim of unjust enrichment.

                                          -8-
                               CONCLUSION

           Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the order of the Fayette

Circuit Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

           ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                    NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE.

Carroll M. Redford, III
Elizabeth C. Woodford
Lexington, Kentucky

                                      -9-