Home/Wyoming Supreme Court/Elder v. Jones

Elder v. Jones

608 P.2d 654, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 246
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 14, 1980
Docket5160
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 608 P.2d 654 (Elder v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Elder v. Jones, 608 P.2d 654, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 246 (Wyo. 1980).

Opinion

RAPER, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Rexford M. Elder, appeals from a judgment of the district court which found that he and his business associate, A. M. “Cy” Harris, 1 breached their contract with the appellee, Walter V. Jones. The judgment awarded appellee damages of $14,993.15. The appellant asserts a number of errors which we shall summarize as follows:

1.The district court erred in permitting the appellee to amend his pleadings to include a theory of breach of contract at the opening of the trial. Rule 15(b), W.R.C.P. 2 Further, the district court erred in failing to grant a continuance in face of the amendment.
2. The doctrine of subrogation could not be applied in this case because there were no contractual obligations running between the appellant and the appellee’s subrogors.
3. The arrangements between the parties were too indefinite to constitute an enforceable contract. Moreover, if there was a contract, it was abandoned.
4. The appellee did not sustain his burden of proving that he had demanded performance from the appellant, a condition precedent to this suit.
5. The district court erred in refusing to grant a continuance to appellant for the purpose of deposing A. M. Harris (See fn. 1, supra).
6. Appellee failed to prove any damages under a breach-of-contract theory.
7. The district court committed reversible error in admitting certain items of evidence.

It was difficult to determine from the briefs the facts and true issues of this case. Although there were a number of persons and business organizations involved in the circumstances which led to this litigation, the legal principles which governed the outcome of the lawsuit were simple, once the debris was cleared away.

This case got underway when, on January 28, 1977, Colorado Lumber & Supply Co., Inc. (Colorado Lumber), filed suit to foreclose a materialman’s lien 3 on a house owned by the appellee. 4 Appellee had made *656 an agreement with the appellant 5 which provided that appellant would build for ap-pellee a home in a housing development in Hanna, Wyoming which was being developed by the appellee. Appellant in turn hired J. L. Wilson (Wilson) to do the actual building of the house. Wilson purchased the materials to build the home from Colorado Lumber. In its lien foreclosure complaint, Colorado Lumber named the appellant, the appellee, and Wilson as defendants. The complaint alleged that appellant, as a contractor, had entered into a contract to build a house for appellee. Appellant then subcontracted with Wilson who was to do the actual construction work. Wilson purchased, and agreed to pay for, the building materials which were supplied by Colorado Lumber and incorporated into the house at Hanna. Colorado Lumber claimed it had not been paid for materials which were valued at $5,046.93. Appellee filed a cross complaint against the appellant asking that any sums that had to be paid by appellee to Colorado Lumber be reimbursed to him by appellant and Wilson. Further, appellee wanted the appellant to defend the lawsuit; and, if appellant failed to do so, that he be required to pay all attorney fees incurred by appellee.

Wilson also got into the action, filing a third-party complaint against both the appellant and appellee. Wilson claimed he had not been paid for materials and labor he provided to the project of building the home. His suit was also to foreclose a lien on the same home which Colorado Lumber had filed on. (See fn. 3, supra). His claim was for over $17,000. Appellee then filed another cross complaint against the appellant asking to be reimbursed by the appellant for any sums he might have to pay Wilson.

In a document dated December 22, 1977, Wilson released his lien against the appellee for a consideration of $15,000 plus $2,000 in supplies that were owned by appellee but retained by Wilson. This, in effect, removed Wilson from this litigation. On February 8, 1978, Colorado Lumber released its lien against appellee and Wilson and assigned and subrogated its rights in the lawsuit to them. This, then, also removed Colorado Lumber from this litigation.

For convenience, the district court referred to the appellee as plaintiff and the appellant as defendant in the pretrial order which was filed on July 6, 1978. Once all the deadwood is cleared away, those are exactly the positions in which they stood. Nonetheless, the parties persisted in using the more complex titles of cross-complainant and cross-defendant. That pretrial order listed the issues for trial to be:

“1. Is the document entitled ‘Proposal,’ dated March 2,1976, a legal contract?
“2. If the ‘Proposal’ is a legal contract, was there a breach thereof?
“3. Was there a sub-contract for construction between J. L. ‘Jack’ Wilson, d/b/a Beaver Interstate Builders, a/k/a Beaver Builders, an individual, and the defendant?
“4. Is defendant liable to the plaintiff for sums paid to Beaver Builders and Colorado Lumber & Supply Co., Inc., by plaintiff?
“5. Is defendant liable to plaintiff for damages and attorney’s fees under Section 29-2-115, W.S., 1977? [ 6 ]
“6. Can defendant claim unjust enrichment against the plaintiff if defendant is liable to the plaintiff?”

The pretrial order also permitted appellee to file an amended complaint within ten days. An amended complaint was filed on July 17, 1978. That complaint asked for a judgment against the appellant for $15,000.

On August 11, 1978, the appellant filed an answer to the amended complaint which, among other things, stated:

*657 “8. If there was a contract between the Cross-Complainant and the Cross-Defendants, that the Cross-Complainant breached such contract and that there was non-performance under the contract and, therefore, no liability.”

At the trial, in the opening proceedings, appellee moved for permission to amend his pleadings to conform to the evidence. A couple of excerpts from the record help to clarify the situation:

“MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. We had a contract with C and R Consultants, that C and R Consultants breached that contract, that as a result thereof liens were filed, that we settled in the amount of $15,000.00, fifteen thousand over and above the original contract price, and anything that we had to pay in order to release these liens C and R Consultants is liable to us for. Now, that’s what it boils down to in a nutshell.
“MR. KELDSEN: If the Court please, it was only — what bothers me is that he is talking about breach of contract and indemnification in the same breath, and it bothers me.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richard W. Adams; Kelly A. Adams; and Adams & Bailey, LLC, a Wyoming close limited liability company v. ANB Bank, a Wyoming branch bank; Capital Management Resources, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and Tim Anderson, in his capacity as a representative of ANB Bank of Wyoming
2026 WY 31 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2026)
Laura Shipley v. Francis Smith
2024 WY 56 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2024)
Osban v. State
439 P.3d 739 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2019)
Cowboy's LLC v. Schumacher
419 P.3d 498 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2018)
Gilbert Ortiz, Jr. v. The State of Wyoming
2014 WY 60 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2014)
Christopher Harignordoquy v. Lee Ann Barlow
2013 WY 149 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2013)
Sonnett v. First American Title Insurance Co.
2013 WY 106 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2013)
George M. Sonnett, Jr. and Wendy Z. Burgers Sonnett, Husband and Wife v. First American Title Insurance Company, a California Corporation, and First American Title Insurance Company of Sublette County, a Wyoming Corporation
2013 WY 106 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2013)
State of Wyoming ex rel., Department of Family Services v. Lisa Kisling
2013 WY 91 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2013)
Jerry Herling v. Wyoming Machinery Co., a Wyoming Corporation
2013 WY 82 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2013)
West America Housing Corp. v. Pearson
2007 WY 184 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2007)
Flood v. State
2007 WY 167 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2007)
Custer v. State
2006 WY 72 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2006)
McGuire v. Solis
2005 WY 129 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2005)
Lindsay v. State
2005 WY 34 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2005)
Morgan v. State
2004 WY 95 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2004)
Yates v. Yates
2003 WY 161 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2003)
Ekberg v. Sharp
2003 WY 123 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2003)
Bailey v. State
12 P.3d 173 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2000)
Matter of the Adoption of BGH
930 P.2d 371 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
608 P.2d 654, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elder-v-jones-wyo-1980.