Estate of Charles Hill v. Elijah Williams

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 56,003-CA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered December 18, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.

No. 56,003-CA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

ESTATE OF CHARLES HILL Plaintiff-Appellant

versus

ELIJAH WILLIAMS Defendant-Appellant

Appealed from the Monroe City Court for the Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2023CV01552

Honorable Angie D. Sturdivant, Judge

ELIJAH WILLIAMS In Proper Person, Defendant-Appellant

DON HILL In Proper Person, Executor, Plaintiff- Appellant

Before PITMAN, COX, and ROBINSON, JJ. ROBINSON, J.

Elijah Williams appeals a judgment ordering him and his construction

company to return $5,138.07 to the Estate of Charles Hill (“Estate”) for

remodeling work that was left unfinished. For the following reasons, the

judgment is affirmed.

FACTS

Donald Hill (“Hill”), a son of the late Charles Hill, contacted Elijah

Williams on July 14, 2022, concerning basement flooding and an

overflowing septic tank at a home owned by the Estate. The home, located

on Buckhorn Bend Loop Road in Monroe, was rented by the Justice family.

Approximately 8,000 gallons of water were pumped from the basement.

The Estate made a claim against its homeowner’s insurer, State Farm.

On August 24, 2022, State Farm issued a check to Hill in the amount of

$5,241.00.

Williams’ construction business, Eli’s Home Improvement, LLC

(“Eli’s”), prepared an estimate for debris removal and remediation of the

damage caused by the flooding. This included the removal and replacement

of flooring, baseboards, and sheetrock to a height of 12-18 inches. The

estimated cost was $22,234.91. On September 12, 2022, the Estate wrote a

check for $12,673.04 to Eli’s, with a balance of $9,561.87 due upon

completion.

Williams began working on the home on September 15, 2022. On

October 23, 2022, Hill met with Williams at the home to check on his

progress. Unfortunately, Hill and Williams were involved in an altercation with members of the Justice family. Hill told Williams to cease working on

the home.

Williams resumed working on the house in February of 2023. After

discovering what he thought was black mold in March, Williams stopped

working on the house until the mold could be removed.

On August 18, 2023, the Estate filed suit against Williams seeking to

recover $17,673.04 plus court costs. The Estate complained that it had paid

for work that was not completed.

A bench trial was held on September 28, 2023. The petition was

amended to add Eli’s as a defendant. Hill testified that Williams took up the

flooring but did not replace it. He further testified that Williams did

additional work involving the walls that he was not authorized to do. Hill

explained that he was seeking the return of what he had paid Eli’s as well as

$5,000.00 in damages incurred when Williams removed sheetrock from the

walls without authorization.

Williams testified that after he discovered mold in the fall of 2022, he

prepared a supplemental claim for State Farm. State Farm wrote an updated

estimate on October 15, 2022. According to Willians, Hill told him that

State Farm denied the supplemental claim, but Williams later learned that

State Farm had approved it.

Williams testified that when he told Hill in 2022 that he may need to

remove additional sheetrock, Hill responded that whatever the Justices

wanted done was fine with him. The removal of the sheetrock exposed

wooden walls that he refinished at the request of the Justices. Williams

2 estimated that this additional work cost $17,290.00. Hill denied authorizing

Williams to do this additional work.

Williams recalled that after the October altercation with the Justices,

Hill ordered him to stop working on the house. On January 22, 2023, Hill

told Williams not to resume work on the house. Nevertheless, Williams

began working on the house again in February. He finished laying the

dining room floor in March. After cleaning the wood flooring in the master

bedroom, he resumed working on the kitchen floor but stopped when he

removed the subflooring and discovered what he thought was black mold.

Williams admitted that $5,138.07 in work remained undone under the

original agreement.

Reggie Justice testified that Williams completed the floors in the

dining room. He also testified that Williams had removed sheetrock and

stained some of the wooden walls.

The trial court noted the conflicting testimony about what work had

been completed. The court found Williams to be more credible than Hill

concerning the extent of the work done. Williams had photos of the new

flooring as well as receipts for the purchases of the new flooring. Justice

corroborated Williams’ testimony about purchasing and replacing flooring.

The court found Justice to be credible.

Williams testified that he performed additional work to remove

sheetrock and refinish walls. However, the court found that Hill had not

authorized this additional work.

3 The court determined that Williams had completed $7,534.97 of work

under their agreement. This left a remaining balance of $5,138.07. The

court ordered the defendants to return that amount to the Estate.

The court rendered judgment in favor of the Estate and against

Williams and Eli’s in the amount of $5,138.07. Each party was to bear its

own costs. The Estate and Williams have appealed the judgment. The

Estate, which was not represented by counsel at trial, did not file a brief.

Williams, who was also not represented by counsel at trial, has filed a brief.

DISCUSSION

Williams first argues that the trial court erred in rendering judgment

against Eli’s. There is no merit to his argument as the petition was amended,

without objection from Williams, to add Eli’s as a defendant.

Williams next argues that the cost of the flooring that he completed

was $15,568.87, and that the original check paid to Eli’s was $12,673.04,

leaving an unpaid balance of $2,895.83. He argues that the trial court erred

in not ordering the Estate to pay that amount. This argument is also without

merit.

To reverse a factfinder’s determination, the appellate court must find

from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding

of the trial court and that the record establishes that the finding is clearly

wrong. Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So. 2d 880

(La. 1993). Even if an appellate court may feel its own evaluations and

inferences are more reasonable than the factfinder’s, reasonable evaluations

of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon

review where conflict exists in the testimony. Cole v. State Dept. of Public

4 Safety & Corr., 01-2123 (La. 9/4/02), 825 So. 2d 1134; Rosell v. ESCO, 549

So. 2d 840 (La. 1989). Moreover, where the factfinder’s conclusions are

based on determinations regarding the credibility of the witnesses, the

manifest error standard demands great deference to the trier of fact because

only the trier of fact can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of

voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding and belief in what

is said. Rosell, supra.

The court found Williams to be more credible than Hill concerning

what work had been done. We note that Williams answered in the

affirmative when he was asked by the trial court if he was claiming that he

had completed $7,534.97 of work under the original estimate, leaving

$5,138.07 in work remaining to be done. In addition, the record supports the

trial court’s rejection of any claim for compensation for the additional work

which had not been authorized by Hill.

CONCLUSION

The judgment is affirmed. Each party is to bear his own costs of this

appeal.

AFFIRMED.