Darwyn's Plumbing v. Lockett

2020 IL App (5th) 170255-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: February 11, 2020
• Docket: 5-17-0255
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2020 IL App (5th) 170255-U NOTICE NOTICE Decision filed 02/11/20. The This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and text of this decision may be NO. 5-17-0255 changed or corrected prior to may not be cited as precedent the filing of a Petition for by any party except in the Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1). APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

DARWYN’S PLUMBING, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Madison County. ) v. ) No. 17-SC-1085 ) REBA M. LOCKETT, ) Honorable ) Philip B. Alfeld, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE OVERSTREET delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Welch and Justice Barberis concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Defendant failed to provide evidence establishing that the circuit court did not review her evidence, and the ruling of the circuit court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶2 The defendant, Reba M. Lockett, appeals pro se the circuit court’s judgment for the

plaintiff, Darwyn’s Plumbing, in the amount of $6203 plus court costs and against her

counterclaim. She argues that the evidence did not support the judgment for the plaintiff and that

the court failed to review all of the documents supporting her counterclaim. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

1 ¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 The defendant hired the plaintiff to repair a sewer line breakage in her basement. The

services included jackhammering the concrete floor, replacing the sewer line from inside to outside

the home, cleaning a contaminated area on the basement floor, removing part of a wall, hand-

digging, back-filling, and removing soil, as well as reconcreting the floor back to level. The work

order signed by the defendant states, “Price includes cleanouts. Darwyns plumbing not responsible

for any landscaping, dirt removed added or settling,” with a total price of $9203.

¶5 Because of nonpayment, the plaintiff filed a small claims case in the amount of $9203

against the defendant for plumbing services. The defendant filed her response and countersuit for

damages in the amount of $10,000. The defendant alleged that plaintiff billed her for services that

were not performed and caused damage to her property. The defendant attached additional

estimates to support her countersuit against the plaintiff.

¶6 After a trial in which both parties testified, the court found in favor of the plaintiff in the

amount of $6203 and court costs in the amount of $192, and against the defendant in her

countersuit. The defendant appeals.

¶7 ANALYSIS

¶8 We begin by noting that the record does not contain a report of proceedings from that trial.

It is the appellant’s duty to provide a complete record on appeal, including transcripts of the

relevant proceedings or, if no verbatim transcript is available, a bystander’s report or an agreed

statement of facts. Ill. S. Ct. R. 321 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); R. 323 (eff. July 1, 2017). “Any doubts

arising from the incompleteness of a record will be resolved against the appellant. (See Daniels v.

City of Venice (1987), 162 Ill. App. 3d 788, 791.)” Hanson v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. Co., 174

Ill. App. 3d 723, 725 (1988).

2 ¶9 Although the defendant frames her argument on appeal as the circuit court’s failure to

consider all of the documentary evidence she provided, the essence of her argument is that the

evidence does not support a judgment for the plaintiff on his complaint or against her on her

counterclaim. Whether a party has breached a contract is a question of fact. Israel v. National

Canada Corp., 276 Ill. App. 3d 454, 461 (1995). We will defer to the trial court’s factual findings

and will not reverse the court’s decision unless those findings are against the manifest weight of

the evidence. In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883, 890 (2004). “A factual finding is against the

manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the

determination is arbitrary, unreasonable, and not based on the evidence. Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App.

3d at 890.” In re G.W., 357 Ill. App. 3d 1058, 1059 (2005).

¶ 10 In addition to the plaintiff’s plumbing estimate and work order, the record includes two

groups of exhibits provided by the defendant. The documents include a check from Cross Country

(the defendant’s home warranty provider) for $3580 to Darwyn’s Plumbing, an invoice for the

work completed, a bill for the original visit, and charges for work that the defendant felt the

plaintiff did not perform, as well as expenses for alleged damages to her property. Additionally,

she included several email and text exchanges between the parties related to her complaints about

the plaintiff’s work and the damage done to her property.

¶ 11 According to the defendant’s exhibits, the plaintiff was at her property between September

19 and 24, 2016, and performed “work” there. The October 4, 2016, work order signed by the

defendant states, “Price includes cleanouts. Darwyns plumbing not responsible for any

landscaping, dirt removed added or settling,” with a total price of $9203. The email/text message

exchanges do not show any “issue” with the quality of “work” until October 19, 2016, when the

plaintiff brought the bill to her house. Based on the defendant’s own exhibits and the other

3 evidence in the record, and in light of the defendant’s failure to provide a transcript, bystander’s

report, or an agreed statement of facts, we cannot say that the court’s finding that the plaintiff

performed work on her property and “excepted” any damage to landscaping, etc., was against the

manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 12 CONCLUSION

¶ 13 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Madison County is affirmed.

¶ 14 Affirmed.