Facility Maintenance USA, LLC v. Brown Sprinkler Corporation (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 04 2020, 8:36 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Christopher J. McElwee Kevin L. Moyer
Monday McElwee Albright Moyer Law Firm
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Facility Maintenance USA, November 4, 2020
LLC, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Defendant, 19A-SC-2827
Appeal from the
v. Marion Small Claims Court
The Honorable
Brown Sprinkler Corporation, Kimberly J. Bacon, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No.
49K03-1904-SC-1882
Vaidik, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Facility Maintenance USA, LLC, contracted for Brown Sprinkler Corporation
to install a sprinkler system in a commercial building. However, Facility
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-2827 | November 4, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Maintenance later refused to pay Brown Sprinkler the final $7,000 owed,
arguing Brown Sprinkler breached the contract. Brown Sprinkler then sued in
small-claims court, and the court found for Brown Sprinkler. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In July 2018, Facility Maintenance contracted for Brown Sprinkler to design
and install a sprinkler system at a commercial building on the northeast side of
Indianapolis for $45,400. The contract stated Brown Sprinkler was to “comply
with local state and city building codes[.]” Ex. p. 4. Brown Sprinkler installed
the system in compliance with a plan approved by the City of Indianapolis and
the State of Indiana. However, when the project was almost complete, the
Indianapolis Fire Department asked Brown Sprinkler to relocate the fire-
department connection (FDC), despite the original FDC location being
“accessible by all of the things [] the fire code require[d].” Tr. p. 32. The fire
department granted a “release based on the new location of the FDC.” Ex. p.
42.
[3] Brown Sprinkler sent Facility Maintenance a change order stating Brown
Sprinkler would relocate the FDC for an additional $2,944.15. Facility
Maintenance did not sign the change order because it believed the relocation
“was part of the original deal.” Tr. p. 21. Without a signed change order,
Brown Sprinkler did not relocate the FDC. Facility Maintenance refused to pay
Brown Sprinkler the final $7,000 of the $45,400 owed under the July 2018
contract, arguing Brown Sprinkler was required under that contract to relocate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-2827 | November 4, 2020 Page 2 of 5
the FDC at no additional cost. Brown Sprinkler then filed a small-claims action
against Facility Maintenance for the $7,000 owed under the contract. At the
hearing, Brown Sprinkler argued relocating the FDC was not required under
the July 2018 contract, it had completed all work required under the July 2018
contract, and Facility Maintenance was in breach for the $7,000 owed. Facility
Maintenance argued the relocation of the FDC was required under the July
2018 contract, and therefore Brown Sprinkler breached by not completing the
relocation at no additional cost.
[4] The court took the matter under advisement and later issued a judgment for
Brown Sprinkler and against Facility Maintenance for $7,000 plus court costs.
[5] Facility Maintenance now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Facility Maintenance appeals the small-claims court’s judgment in favor of
Brown Sprinkler. Small-claims actions involve informal trials with the sole
objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules
of substantive law. Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 483 (Ind. 2003). We will
reverse only upon clear error. Kalwitz v. Kalwitz, 934 N.E.2d 741, 748 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2010), trans. denied. We will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess
witness credibility and will consider only the evidence most favorable to the
judgment. Id. But this deferential standard does not apply to the substantive
rules of law, which are reviewed de novo just as they are in appeals from a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-2827 | November 4, 2020 Page 3 of 5
court of general jurisdiction. Lae, 789 N.E.2d at 483. The issue in this case turns
on the meaning of the parties’ July 2018 contract, which is a pure question of
law and is reviewed de novo. Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065,
1068 (Ind. 2006). When a contract is clear and unambiguous, the language
must be given its plain meaning. Tippecanoe Valley Sch. Corp. v. Landis, 698
N.E.2d 1218, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied.
[7] Facility Maintenance argues Brown Sprinkler breached the contract because the
suppression system “was to be installed pursuant to all local codes, which
included the fire department’s release of the FDC.” Appellant’s Br. p. 7.
However, the contract contains no mention of the fire department’s approval or
“release,” requiring only compliance with “local state and city building
codes[.]” Ex. p. 4. The plain meaning of the term “building code” does not
include a fire department’s “release,” and Facility Maintenance fails to offer
evidence or legal authority suggesting the fire department’s release is a code
requirement. And tellingly, Facility Maintenance cites no code provision the
current FDC location allegedly violates. In contrast, Brown Sprinkler testified
repeatedly that the original design and location of the FDC was code
compliant, as the original location made the FDC “accessible by all of the
things [] the fire code requires.” Tr. p. 32. Nonetheless, the fire department
could request a relocation because it has the authority to “throw[] out” the
codebook and “ask for anything[.]” Id. at 31. Because the contract required only
code compliance, and Brown Sprinkler offered evidence all their work complied
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-2827 | November 4, 2020 Page 4 of 5
with the code, it was reasonable for the small-claims court to conclude that the
relocation of the FDC was not covered under the contract.
[8] Based on this evidence, the judgment for Brown Sprinkler is not clearly
erroneous.
[9] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-2827 | November 4, 2020 Page 5 of 5