Haynie v. Cash ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
    CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
    EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
    THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
    In The Court of Appeals
    F.M. Haynie d/b/a Docwild's General Contractor,
    Appellant,
    v.
    Paul E. Cash and Carole S. Cash, Respondents.
    Appellate Case No. 2012-210746
    Appeal From Richland County
    Joseph M. Strickland, Master-In-Equity
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-489
    Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed December 23, 2013
    AFFIRMED
    F.M. Haynie, pro se, of Columbia.
    Catharine H. Garbee Griffin, of Baker Ravenel &
    Bender, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondents.
    PER CURIAM: F.M. Haynie d/b/a Docwild's General Contractor (Haynie)
    appeals the master-in-equity's order, arguing the master erred by (1) finding the
    contract was a sum certain contract, (2) denying damages to Haynie under the
    theory of quantum meruit, (3) awarding damages to Paul Cash and Carole Cash
    (the Cashes), and (4) adopting the Cashes' proposed order. We affirm.
    1. The master did not err in concluding the parties' contract was for a sum certain.
    The March 2, 2007 letter from Haynie to the Cashes served as an offer, and the
    parties made counteroffers through oral negotiations. The master found the parties
    eventually orally agreed the cost of the shed would be for a sum certain of $35,000
    with the cost of the windows and doors to be added once those items were selected.
    See Gaskins v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J., 
    206 S.C. 213
    , 216, 
    33 S.E.2d 498
    , 499 (1945) (noting that if there is a meeting of the minds with regard to the
    essential elements of a contract, it is immaterial whether the contract is written or
    oral). The master's finding is supported by evidence of the parties' intent. See U.S.
    Bank Trust Nat'l Ass'n v. Bell, 
    385 S.C. 364
    , 374, 
    684 S.E.2d 199
    , 204-05 (Ct.
    App. 2009) ("When interpreting an oral contract, a court must give effect to the
    intentions of the parties. The determination of the parties' intent is a question of
    fact." (citations omitted)). Haynie's ledger, spreadsheets, and internal documents
    reference a contract price of $35,000, and Cash noted the cost of the project was
    $35,000 in his ledger. During the course of building the shed, the parties orally
    agreed to changes and upgrades to the initial scope of work. See Roberts v.
    Gaskins, 
    327 S.C. 478
    , 483, 
    486 S.E.2d 771
    , 773 (Ct. App. 1997) ("A contract is
    an obligation which arises from [an] actual agreement of the parties manifested by
    words, oral or written, or by conduct."). The parties agreed on the cost for each
    change or upgrade, and the Cashes paid Haynie accordingly. Thus, based upon our
    "any evidence" standard of review, the master did not err by concluding the
    contract was for a sum certain of $35,000, with subsequent oral modifications. See
    Sherlock Holmes Pub, Inc. v. City of Columbia, 
    389 S.C. 77
    , 81, 
    697 S.E.2d 619
    ,
    621 (Ct. App. 2010) ("An action to construe a contract is an action at law
    reviewable under an any evidence standard." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    2. The master did not err in denying damages to Haynie under the theory of
    quantum meruit. Because the master properly concluded the parties had an express
    contract, Haynie cannot recover under quantum meruit. See Earthscapes
    Unlimited, Inc. v. Ulbrich, 
    390 S.C. 609
    , 616, 
    703 S.E.2d 221
    , 225 (2010)
    ("Absent an express contract, recovery under quantum meruit is based on quasi-
    contract."). Further, Haynie cannot establish a claim under quantum meruit
    because he failed to prove the Cashes unjustly retained a benefit without paying for
    it. See id. at 616-17, 
    703 S.E.2d at 225
     ("To establish a claim of quantum meruit,
    the plaintiff must prove: (1) a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff;
    (2) realization of that benefit by the defendant; and (3) retention by the defendant
    of the benefit under conditions that make it unjust for him to retain it without
    paying its value."). Haynie failed to provide an accurate estimate because he based
    his opinion on the value of the shed on the erroneous premise that the shed was a
    residential, conventional, or recreational dwelling. However, Haynie admitted the
    Cashes cannot occupy the shed because it does not have a kitchen or full bath.
    Thus, Haynie failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a claim for damages
    under quantum meruit.
    3. The master did not err in awarding $4,135 in damages to the Cashes. The record
    contains evidence Haynie failed to meet the proper standard of care when installing
    the septic tank and the shingles to the shed. See Doe v. Marion, 
    373 S.C. 390
    , 400,
    
    645 S.E.2d 245
    , 250 (2007) ("To prove negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1)
    defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) defendant breached the duty by a
    negligent act or omission; (3) defendant's breach was the actual and proximate
    cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (4) plaintiff suffered an injury or damages.");
    Smith v. Breedlove, 
    377 S.C. 415
    , 422, 
    661 S.E.2d 67
    , 71 (2008) ("A builder who
    contracts to construct a dwelling impliedly warrants that the work undertaken will
    be performed in a careful, diligent, workmanlike manner."). Mr. Cash testified he
    paid $1,975 to replace the septic tank in the shed because Haynie did not install it
    according to code and it overflowed into the shed. Replacing the defective septic
    tank also damaged the Cashes' sprinkler system, which cost an additional $1,590 to
    repair. Finally, Mr. Cash testified Haynie's improper installation of the shingles
    caused the shed to rot from water pooling. The Cashes paid $585 to replace the
    shingles. Therefore, the master properly awarded $4,135 in damages to the
    Cashes.
    4. Haynie argues the master erred in adopting the Cashes' proposed order. This
    issue is not preserved because Haynie raises it for the first time on appeal. See
    Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 
    330 S.C. 71
    , 76, 
    497 S.E.2d 731
    , 733 (1998) ("It is
    axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have
    been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate
    review.").
    AFFIRMED.1
    FEW, C.J., and PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013-UP-489

Filed Date: 12/23/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024