Trees In Travel v. Adams, N. ( 2021 )

J-A08018-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
TREES IN TRAVEL, LLC : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
NICHOLAS C. ADAMS, DEBORAH S. :
ADAMS, MONKHOUSE, LLC, AND :
1029 BLACK ROCK, LLC : No. 1300 EDA 2020
:
Appellants :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 15, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at
No(s): No. 2016-02929
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: May 10, 2021
Nicholas C. and Deborah S. Adams, husband and wife, Monkhouse, LLC
and 1029 Black Rock, LLC (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the judgment
entered against them and in favor of Trees in Travel, LLC (TNT). We affirm.
Despite the voluminous record (more than 6,300 pages excluding
transcripts), 16-day bench trial (including testimony from no less than 6
experts), and millions of dollars expended, this appeal, at its essence,
concerns a fee dispute between a retail client, Appellants, and their
landscaping company, TNT.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08018-21
Following trial, the court authored a 76-page decision; in response to
this appeal, it issued a 40-page Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Court Opinion,
2/21/20, at 1-76; Trial Court Opinion, 8/24/20, at 1-40. In the latter, the
court recounted the following:
[TNT] is a limited liability company. . . . Douglas and Constance
Herrmann [Mr. Herrmann Ms. Herrmann or the Herrmanns] are
the sole members and equal co-owners of TNT. Nicholas and
Deborah Adams [Appellants or Mr. Adams Ms. Adams the Adams]
are husband and wife, residing at all times relevant at 1500 Monk
Road, Gladwyne, PA 19035 (hereinafter “the Monk Property”).
Defendant Monkhouse, LLC and Defendant 1029 Black Rock, LLC
are limited liability companies. Monkhouse, LLC owns the Monk
Property at 1500 Monk Road, Gladwyne, PA, while 1029 Black
Rock, LLC owns the property located at 1029 Black Rock Road,
Gladwyne, PA. Nicholas Adams is the sole member of both LLCs.
Prior to the work at issue in the instant matter, TNT and the Adams
entered into an agreement for tree removal work, pursuant to a
written proposal dated July 8, 2009. The Adams subsequently
hired TNT to perform additional landscaping work over the course
of the next seventeen (17) months, through January 2011. The
Herrmanns testified that during these months of work, the parties
established a course of dealing in which there was no requirement
for a written scope of work, no request for rates for labor,
equipment, or materials in advance of work, and no requirement
for interim invoicing, yet the Adams paid invoices even when they
were received months after completion of the work. During this
period, the scope of work expanded pursuant to a series of verbal
and email requests by the Adams and their property manager,
Ray Starzmann.
On or about March 2, 2011, TNT submitted a “Preliminary
Landscape Estimate” (hereinafter “Preliminary Estimate”) to the
Adams for landscape services based on a plan designed by Simone
Collins Landscape Architecture. The Preliminary Estimate
proposed a design with 27 “specimen extra large trees,” 51
“specimen large trees,” 508 shrubs, 4,262 perennials, and
approximately 4,000 bulbs and provided that a “TWO YEAR full
replacement guarantee will apply for each tree.” The Preliminary
Estimate stated that the installation would take place over the
-2-
J-A08018-21
course of 2011, potentially continuing into spring of 2012. The
Preliminary Estimate provided a fixed, lump sum price of
$1,287,500 but stated that the Adams could opt to instead select
a “non-traditional” approach where landscape installation would
take place on a “time and materials basis.” Ms. Adams accepted
TNT’s Preliminary Estimate when she signed the last page of the
document and returned it to TNT with a deposit of $200,000.
However, the Adams did not specify whether they wanted to
proceed with the fixed price option or the time and materials
option. Ms. Adams sent an email to the Adams’ property manager
at the time, Ray Starzmann, stating that this check was “for [TNT]
to get started’’ with the work.
***
TNT performed work at the Monk Property from March 2011 until
the Adams suspended them on February 25, 2015. TNT had never
taken on a project bigger than the project at the Monk Property,
either in terms of cost or in terms of the number of trees and
plants involved. TNT’s scope of work expanded “significantly”
beyond the work proposed in the Preliminary Estimate. In
particular, TNT’s work expanded as they received updated plans
and plant lists from landscape architect Sarah Leeper of Simone
Collins and new plant selections from Mr. Adams. TNT’s work also
expanded to include providing support for construction-related
services—in the form of labor, equipment, and materials—to other
contractors working at the Monk Property.
***
TNT did not provide any change orders as the scope of work
expanded, instead billing as work was performed. As for
construction-related services, TNT did not provide any written
contract or change order for any services, in advance of the scope
of work expanding—consistent with the parties’ prior course of
dealing, the Adams accepted TNT’s work. The Adams frequently
praised TNT.
On August 13, 2014, the Adams’ [other] property manager, Joe
Rizzo, requested that TNT perform landscaping services at the
property located at 1029 Black Rock Road, Gladwyne, PA—
including weeding, mulching, pruning, and removal of green ivy.
In this email request, Mr. Rizzo requested that a separate invoice
for this work be provided to the Adams. The Adams were copied
-3-
J-A08018-21
as recipients on this email. TNT submitted its billing for work done
at the 1029 Black Rock Road property in a separate invoice as
requested, sending Invoice #432 to Mr. Rizzo on February 25,
2015, for a total amount of $5,038.21. Mr. Rizzo forwarded this
invoice to Ms. Adams, who responded by asking whether the
amount seemed reasonable and whether they had already paid
for the work. Mr. Rizzo replied saying that the invoice “seems
reasonable” and confirming that the Adams had not yet paid for
the work at 1029 Black Rock Road. After this exchange, Ms.
Adams emailed Mr. Rizzo saying “I will send (TNT) a check for
this.” Thereafter, Mr. Rizzo emailed Ms. Herrmann saying “you
will be receiving payment for the Black Rock Road invoice.” A
check was prepared and sent to TNT for work done at 1029 Black
Rock Road, but subsequently, Defendant 1029 Black Rock LLC
stopped payment on that check.
During the period from March 2, 2011 through February 18, 2012,
TNT issued eight accountings requesting payment from the
Adams. Each accounting noted that it did not include “labor,
equipment, dump tracks, dumpster and disposal fees, storage
fees and materials as directed by Ray Starzmann...” Ms.
Herrmann testified that the purpose of such a notation was to
make it clear that the accountings were not meant to be inclusive
of all work performed. The accountings did not disclose rates for
labor, equipment, material markups, or otherwise explain how
work beyond the scope of the original Preliminary Estimate might
be charged. However, despite lack of rates or more detailed
invoicing, the Adams continued to pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars in progress payments to TNT, without insisting on receiving
additional accountings or invoices.
Over the years, the Adams made a handful of other requests for
more detailed invoicing. The Herrmanns testified that they
struggled to provide the Adams with detailed invoicing due to
TNT’s lack of a sophisticated project cost accounting system, the
ever-expanding scope of the project, and Ms. Herrmann’s
struggles with Lyme disease. Still, as testified by Mr. Adams, not
once did the Adams order TNT to stop performing work prior to
February 25, 2015. On December 13, 2012, Mr. Starzmann asked
TNT whether “the monies you have been paid bring you current?”
TNT responded “[t]he answer to your question is that we are
current, for the most part.” Ms. Herrmann testified that TNT’s
assessment that the Adams were current “for the most part” was
-4-
J-A08018-21
based on a “rough analysis” performed in one day, in advance of
a budget meeting to be held two days later.
TNT made its last request for a progress payment in October 2014
in the amount of $300,000, explaining that the payment was “so
we can continue to stay current.” Ms. Herrmann testified that
staying “current” as written in this email referred to payment of
$300,000 being enough for TNT to be able to stay current in
paying its own vendors and subcontractors — not the currency of
the Adams’ payments to TNT. Ms. Adams testified that other than
TNT’s email of October 16, 2014, she could not recall if there
existed any other written document in which TNT indicated that
the Adams’ account was current. In January 2015, the Adams
asked TNT to begin submitting monthly invoices, starting with an
invoice for January 2015. Ms. Adams testified that this was the
first time she had asked TNT to provide a monthly invoice. TNT
complied with this request, submitting the January 2015 Invoice
#431 in an email to Mr. Rizzo, which totaled $38,551.42 and
included TNT’s labor rates. Mr. Rizzo forwarded the January 2015
invoice to Ms. Adams, who responded “I have no idea where we
stand with payments with them.” Ms. Adams testified that she
did not look at the January 2015 invoice, instead passing it off to
Mr. Rizzo to review upon receipt.
On February 25, 2015, TNT submitted its Closeout Invoice seeking
payment of $2,802,902.78 in addition to the $3,907,500 the
Adams had paid to TNT until that point — bringing the total value
of work performed at the Monk Property as estimated by TNT to
$6,710,420.78. The Adams responded to the email with the
Closeout Invoice, saying they would review the invoices that
evening. Mr. Adams testified that he and Ms. Adams felt
“shocked” and “scammed” by the Closeout Invoice. On February
25, 2015, Mr. Rizzo sent an email to the Herrmanns, informing
them that TNT’s services at the Monk Property were suspended.
After terminating TNT, the Adams retained Stillwater Landscaping
for services in the interim period before they could assemble their
own in-house crew. . . .
The Court conducted a sixteen-day bench trial on June 3 to June
4, 2019, July 31 to August 9, 2019, September 3 to September 6,
2019, and September 18 to September 19, 2019. At trial, both
parties made a case as to what the reasonable value of TNT’s
services was. The Adams’ estimation of reasonable value was
based on a report by James Gallagher of Resolution Management
-5-
J-A08018-21
Consultants (RMC). Mr. Gallagher reviewed TNT’s records to
determine the actual costs incurred to perform the work, then
applied a 20% markup for self-performed labor, equipment, and
materials and a 5% markup for subcontracted labor—concluding
that reasonable value was $2,940,480.90. Because the Adams
had already paid TNT $3,907,500, Mr. Gallagher’s reasonable
value estimate was $967,019.10 less than the total amount in
progress payments the Adams made to TNT. Mr. Gallagher
identified a total of $244,946.37 in “improper charges,” a full
discussion of which is found in the Court’s Decision at pp. 26-28.
The Court credited most of Mr. Gallagher’s conclusions as to
improper labor charges and found excess labor charges totaled
$308,353.96.
Contrary to the Adams, TNT did not adopt the position that actual
costs plus reasonable overhead and profit constituted reasonable
value. To value TNT’s specimen plants, TNT called Mr. Brooks, Mr.
LaHoff, and Mr. Stanek — all qualified experts on valuation of rare
specimen plants with many years of experience in the landscaping
industry. Mr. Brooks described some plants provided by TNT to
the Adams as being “of super specimen” quality, “spectacular,”
and “unbelievable,” with some being the type of plants one would
see only “once in a lifetime” given their age and rarity. Mr. LaHoff
also testified to the rarity of the plants, explaining that only a
“handful” of growers in the country would be able to offer them
and that finding the plants TNT provided would be difficult without
“connections.” Mr. Stanek testified to the rarity of the plants
supplied to the Adams by TNT, calling some trees “one of a kind,”
“unique,” or like “a piece of art.” All three experts testified that
their estimates are what a member of the consuming public would
ordinarily have to pay. When asked whether he determined
whether there exists a nursery dealer from which a consumer like
the Adams could actually purchase a particular specimen tree for
the price he valued it at, Mr. Gallagher testified that he made no
such inquiry.
As for valuation of TNT’s labor, equipment, and materials, TNT
offered Paul Pocalyko and Rocco Vespe from the consulting
practice HKA, Global, Inc. as experts. In total, Mr. Pocalyko and
Mr. Vespe estimated the Adams owed TNT a remaining balance of
either $3,100,148 or $3,398,590. Similar to the Adams’ expert,
HKA also identified a number of erroneous charges in TNT’s
Closeout Invoice, which the [c]ourt credited. A breakdown of how
HKA calculated reasonable value is found in the [c]ourt’s Decision.
-6-
J-A08018-21
Following receipt of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, this [c]ourt determined that judgment should be entered in
favor of [TNT] and against [Appellants] for breach of implied
contract, or in the alternative, unjust enrichment, in the amount
of $1,497,413 for the reasonable value of TNT’s unpaid trees,
labor, equipment, and materials related to work at 1500 Monk
Road, and $5,038.21 for same at 1029 Black Rock Road. The
[c]ourt further ordered that judgment should be entered in favor
of [TNT] and against [Appellants on their counterclaims]
Thereafter, [Appellants] filed a Motion for Post-Trial Relief, and
[TNT] filed a Motion to Mold the [c]ourt’s Decision and Judgment
to Include Pre-Judgment Interest. The [c]ourt issued an order
granting [TNT’s] motion only as to the request to mold the verdict
to add post-judgment interest, denying the request to mold the
verdict to add pre-judgment interest. The [c]ourt issued a
Memorandum Opinion-Order for [Appellants’] Motion for Post-Trial
Relief, granting the motion as to the request that the [c]ourt
vacate its award of prejudgment interest and denying the
remainder of the requested relief.
[Appellants] filed a timely Notice of Appeal on June 22, 2020.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/24/20, at 1-11 (record citations and footnotes omitted).
Appellants and the trial court subsequently complied with Pennsylvania
Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.1 Appellants present four questions for our
review:2
____________________________________________
1Appellants’ 6-page, 24-issue Rule 1925(b) concise statement is not concise,
and there is case law which would support a finding of waiver. See Jiricko
v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 210 (Pa. Super. 2008) (finding waiver
appropriate where appellant filed five-page incoherent statement of errors);
see also Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Super. 2004). However,
as the trial court has attempted to address Appellants’ myriad claims, we
decline to find waiver and likewise review Appellants’ issues.
2Appellants timely filed their brief on October 6, 2020. On December 14,
2020, without seeking leave of Court, Appellants filed what they titled a
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-7-
J-A08018-21
1. Did the trial court err in awarding [TNT] quantum meruit
damages of $1,497,413 beyond the $3,907,500 in progress
payments requested by [TNT] and paid by Appellants for
landscaping and construction services in 2011-2014, where [TNT]
represented that the progress payments were bringing
[Appellants’] account current, and where [TNT] nevertheless “re-
priced” its services after all work was done in February 2015, in
an attempt to charge Appellants an additional $2,802,920, all of
which represented excess profits?
2. Did the trial court err in adopting the labor rates and
tree/shrub/conifer charges in [TNT’s] February 2015 Invoice as
representing “reasonable value” despite [TNT’s] failure to adduce
any specific evidence that any other customer ever paid [TNT]
comparable rates or charges, contrary to Temple Univ. Hosp.,
Inc. v. Healthcare Mgmt. Alternatives, Inc., 832 A.2d 501(Pa. Super. Ct. 2003)?
3. Did the trial court err by declining to measure “reasonable
value” consistent with construction/landscaping industry
standards, where contractors are ordinarily paid their actual cost
plus a reasonable allowance for overhead and profit for services
provided beyond the scope of a fixed price contract?
4. Did the trial court’s award result in an impermissible
windfall recovery for TNT, where it was based on a 97.1% mark-
up ($2,664,028) over TNT’s actual costs of $2,740,884.99, which
far exceeded standard industry markups of no more than 20% for
projects of comparable scale performed on a time and materials
basis?
Appellants’ Brief at 2-3.3
____________________________________________
“Definitive Copy” of their brief. Appellants cite no authority for the December
14, 2020 filing, which we decline to consider. Our references to Appellants’
brief are to the October 6, 2020 filing.
3 Contrary to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellants’ argument is divided
into three issues, rather than the four enumerated in their statement of
questions presented. The first issue has two subparts, and the second issue
has six subparts which conflate the second and third issues. See Appellant’s
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8-
J-A08018-21
Appellants first argue the trial court erred in awarding damages to TNT
because: (1) the “award was contrary to the expectations of the parties given
the ‘surrounding circumstances’ governing the implied-in-fact contract”; and
(2) TNT’s claim for relief “should have been barred by the Unclean Hands
Doctrine given TNT’s improper and unscrupulous conduct.” Appellants’ Brief
at 33, 38 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Pertinently:
Our appellate role in cases arising from non-jury trial verdicts is
to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported
by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed
error in any application of the law. The findings of fact of the trial
judge must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the
verdict of a jury. We consider the evidence in a light most
favorable to the verdict winner. We will reverse the trial court
only if its findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence
in the record or if its findings are premised on an error of law.
However, [where] the issue . . . concerns a question of law, our
scope of review is plenary.
Metro Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Bembry, 207 A.3d 336, 339 (Pa.
Super. 2019) (citations omitted). The “credibility of witnesses is an issue to
be determined by the trier of fact. On appeal, this Court will not revisit the
trial court’s determinations regarding the credibility of the parties.” Garwood
v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc., 240 A.3d 945, 948 (Pa. Super. 2020)
(citations omitted).
____________________________________________
Brief at 32-60; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (“The argument shall be divided
into as many parts as there are questions to be argued.”).
-9-
J-A08018-21
However, with respect to contract claims:
Because contract interpretation is a question of law, this Court is
not bound by the trial court’s interpretation. Our standard of
review over questions of law is de novo and to the extent
necessary, the scope of our review is plenary as the appellate
court may review the entire record in making its decision.
However, we are bound by the trial court’s credibility
determinations.
Gillard v. Martin, 13 A.3d 482, 487 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Lastly, “[q]uantum meruit is an equitable remedy to provide restitution
for unjust enrichment in the amount of the reasonable value of services.” Am.
& Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526, 532 n.8 (Pa.
2010) (citation omitted).
Where unjust enrichment is found, the law implies a contract,
which requires the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the value of
the benefit conferred. The elements necessary to prove unjust
enrichment are:
(1) benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff; (2)
appreciation of such benefits by defendant; and (3)
acceptance and retention of such benefits under such
circumstances that it would be inequitable for
defendant to retain the benefit without payment of
value. The application of the doctrine depends on the
particular factual circumstances of the case at issue.
In determining if the doctrine applies, our focus is not
on the intention of the parties, but rather on whether
the defendant has been unjustly enriched.
Mitchell v. Moore, 729 A.2d 1200, 1203–04 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citations
omitted).
Instantly, Appellants do not articulate any error of law by the trial court
in finding unjust enrichment; instead, viewing the evidence in the light most
- 10 -
J-A08018-21
favorable to themselves, they challenge the trial court’s interpretation of their
dealings with TNT and its determination as to damages. Appellants’ Brief at
33-38. In other words, rather than present a cogent legal argument,
Appellants assail the trial court’s findings of fact, and attempt to retry their
case on appeal. We emphasize,
our scope of review . . . is very limited. We will respect the trial
court’s findings with regard to credibility and weight of the
evidence unless it can be shown that the lower court’s
determination was manifestly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious
or flagrantly contrary to the evidence.
Hollock v. Erie Ins. Exch., 842 A.2d 409, 417 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc).
In its 76-page decision, the trial court cited both testimonial and
documentary evidence in explaining how its findings aligned with the parties’
prior dealings. The court additionally explained its calculations of damages,
and in particular, why it did not credit Appellants’ claims that they had paid
TNT in full. Trial Court Opinion, 2/21/20, at 30-59; see also Trial Court
Opinion, 8/24/20, at 15-21, 32-33. As the record supports the trial court, we
discern no error.
Appellants also claim TNT is not entitled to recovery because they acted
with unclean hands. Our Supreme Court has stated,
a court may deprive a party of equitable relief where, to the
detriment of the other party, the party applying for such relief is
guilty of bad conduct relating to the matter at issue. The doctrine
of unclean hands requires that one seeking equity act fairly and
without fraud or deceit as to the controversy in issue.
- 11 -
J-A08018-21
Terraciano v. DOT, 753 A.2d 233, 237-38 (Pa. 2000) (citations omitted).
The burden of proving unclean hands is on Appellants. See Montgomery
Bros., Inc. v. Montgomery, 112 A. 474, 475 (Pa. 1921).
Appellants’ argument is, again, all but devoid of legal authority;
Appellants characterize the facts in the light most favorable to themselves and
ask that we reweigh the evidence. Appellants’ Brief at 38-45. In contrast,
the trial court ably addressed Appellants’ clean-hands claim. Trial Court
Opinion, 2/21/20, at 71-72. The court acknowledged, as it had throughout
the decision, billing discrepancies by TNT which resulted in Appellants being
overcharged. Id. at 71. However, the court also determined that both parties
were complicit — TNT for not being “more transparent and communicative in
its billing practices,” and Appellants for allowing “TNT to perform such
extensive work without clear agreements as to billings and practices.” Id. at
71-72. The court further found TNT’s conduct did “not rise to the level of
‘fraud’ or ‘deceit’ or otherwise ‘shock the conscience’ of the [c]ourt to justify
barring [TNT’s] recovery under the doctrine of unclean hands.” Id. at 72. The
court explained it addressed the overbilling and other “improper” charges by
“appropriate deductions in its calculation of the reasonable value of TNT’s
services.” Id.
Appellants have not cited any legal authority to support a claim that the
trial court misapplied the law. While we have undertaken careful review, it is
not our responsibility to comb through the record for factual underpinnings of
- 12 -
J-A08018-21
a claim, or to find support for Appellants’ contention that TNT’s conduct
amounted to more than billing errors and/or misunderstandings between the
parties, i.e., unclean hands. See Commonwealth v. Mulholland, 702 A.2d
1027, 1034 n.5 (Pa. Super. 1997) (“In a record containing thousands of
pages, this court will not search every page to substantiate a party’s
incomplete argument.”). Appellant’s first issue does not merit relief.
In their combined second and third issues, Appellants argue the trial
court did not apply the correct “legal analysis in determining the reasonable
value of labor and specimen trees supplied by TNT.” Appellants’ Brief at 45.
Appellants complain the trial court did not follow this Court’s decision in
Temple Univ. Hosp. Inc. v. Healthcare Management Alternatives, Inc.,
832 A.2d 501 (Pa. Super. 2003).4 Id. at 45-59.
We note that Temple involved a billing dispute between a hospital and
health insurance provider over Medicaid fees. Id. at 504. This Court, in
upholding the trial court ruling that the insurer had underpaid Temple and was
unjustly enriched, disagreed with the trial court that the correct fees were the
hospital’s published fees. Id. at 507-09. We stated the correct standard for
determining fees as follows:
Where, as here, there is no express agreement to pay, the law
implies a promise to pay a reasonable fee for a health provider’s
____________________________________________
4 While Appellants assert the trial court erred in its application of Temple, in
fact, they again devote most of their argument to depicting the evidence in
the light most favorable to themselves, and asking this Court to reweigh the
evidence in their favor. Appellants’ Brief at 45-59.
- 13 -
J-A08018-21
services. Thus, in a situation such as this, the defendant should
pay for what the services are ordinarily worth in the
community. Services are worth what people ordinarily pay
for them. Whether the amount charged is unconscionable and
whether it shocks the conscience is irrelevant.
Temple, 832 A.2d at 508 (citations omitted, emphases added).
This Court in Temple also noted the limits of its decision because of the
participants (a not-for-profit teaching hospital and a health insurance
provider), state and federal regulations involved in Medicaid billing, and the
peculiar nature of healthcare billing in general where published rates are rarely
paid and insurance providers routinely negotiate their rates with providers.
Id. at 504-06, 508-09.
Here, the trial court distinguished Temple, noting the unique and
different nature of landscaping, and the fact that neither party provided
evidence of what customers would “ordinarily” pay for a project such as
Appellants’, which was out of the ordinary. Trial Court Opinion, 2/21/20, at
33-34. The court was “forced to look to the evidence presented at trial to
craft its best approximation of what ‘people in the community ordinarily pay’
for the type of work performed by TNT for [Appellants’] project.” Id. at 34.
Upon review, we see nothing in Temple which compels a trial court to look at
other customers’ invoices to determine reasonable value, or conversely,
precludes a court from relying on expert testimony. Moreover, after careful
consideration, we conclude the trial court’s well-reasoned opinion thoroughly
and capably explains why this issue lacks merit. We therefore adopt the
- 14 -
J-A08018-21
court’s reasoning as our own in disposing of this issue. See Trial Court
Opinion, 8/24/20, at 21-31.
Finally, Appellants claim the trial court granted “a windfall to TNT by
failing to limit TNT’s quantum meruit recovery to an amount that did not
exceed its actual costs, based on industry standards.” Appellants’ Brief at 59.
This issue is deficient in that it is essentially a summation and repeat of the
conclusion in Appellants’ prior issues, in which they represent the facts
favorably to themselves, and suggest their rendition of the facts warrants a
finding by this Court that is contrary to that of trial court. This argument is
further undercut by Appellants’ failure to develop it with citation to legal
authority. We have explained:
The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each
question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and
analysis of pertinent authority. Appellate arguments which fail to
adhere to these rules may be considered waived, and arguments
which are not appropriately developed are waived. Arguments not
appropriately developed include those where the party has failed
to cite any authority in support of a contention. This Court will not
act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an
appellant. Moreover, we observe that the Commonwealth Court,
our sister appellate court, has aptly noted that [m]ere issue
spotting without analysis or legal citation to support an assertion
precludes our appellate review of [a] matter.
Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088-89 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations
omitted). For these reasons, this final issue lacks merit.
Judgment affirmed.
- 15 -
J-A08018-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/10/21
- 16 -