Facility Maintenance USA, LLC v. Brown Sprinkler Corporation (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 4, 2020
• Docket: 19A-SC-2827
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 04 2020, 8:36 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Christopher J. McElwee Kevin L. Moyer Monday McElwee Albright Moyer Law Firm Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Facility Maintenance USA, November 4, 2020 LLC, Court of Appeals Case No. Appellant-Defendant, 19A-SC-2827 Appeal from the v. Marion Small Claims Court The Honorable Brown Sprinkler Corporation, Kimberly J. Bacon, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No. 49K03-1904-SC-1882

Vaidik, Judge.

Case Summary [1] Facility Maintenance USA, LLC, contracted for Brown Sprinkler Corporation

to install a sprinkler system in a commercial building. However, Facility Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-2827 | November 4, 2020 Page 1 of 5 Maintenance later refused to pay Brown Sprinkler the final $7,000 owed,

arguing Brown Sprinkler breached the contract. Brown Sprinkler then sued in

small-claims court, and the court found for Brown Sprinkler. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In July 2018, Facility Maintenance contracted for Brown Sprinkler to design

and install a sprinkler system at a commercial building on the northeast side of

Indianapolis for $45,400. The contract stated Brown Sprinkler was to “comply

with local state and city building codes[.]” Ex. p. 4. Brown Sprinkler installed

the system in compliance with a plan approved by the City of Indianapolis and

the State of Indiana. However, when the project was almost complete, the

Indianapolis Fire Department asked Brown Sprinkler to relocate the fire-

department connection (FDC), despite the original FDC location being

“accessible by all of the things [] the fire code require[d].” Tr. p. 32. The fire

department granted a “release based on the new location of the FDC.” Ex. p.

42.

[3] Brown Sprinkler sent Facility Maintenance a change order stating Brown

Sprinkler would relocate the FDC for an additional $2,944.15. Facility

Maintenance did not sign the change order because it believed the relocation

“was part of the original deal.” Tr. p. 21. Without a signed change order,

Brown Sprinkler did not relocate the FDC. Facility Maintenance refused to pay

Brown Sprinkler the final $7,000 of the $45,400 owed under the July 2018

contract, arguing Brown Sprinkler was required under that contract to relocate

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-2827 | November 4, 2020 Page 2 of 5 the FDC at no additional cost. Brown Sprinkler then filed a small-claims action

against Facility Maintenance for the $7,000 owed under the contract. At the

hearing, Brown Sprinkler argued relocating the FDC was not required under

the July 2018 contract, it had completed all work required under the July 2018

contract, and Facility Maintenance was in breach for the $7,000 owed. Facility

Maintenance argued the relocation of the FDC was required under the July

2018 contract, and therefore Brown Sprinkler breached by not completing the

relocation at no additional cost.

[4] The court took the matter under advisement and later issued a judgment for

Brown Sprinkler and against Facility Maintenance for $7,000 plus court costs.

[5] Facility Maintenance now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [6] Facility Maintenance appeals the small-claims court’s judgment in favor of

Brown Sprinkler. Small-claims actions involve informal trials with the sole

objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules

of substantive law. Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 483 (Ind. 2003). We will

reverse only upon clear error. Kalwitz v. Kalwitz, 934 N.E.2d 741, 748 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2010), trans. denied. We will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess

witness credibility and will consider only the evidence most favorable to the

judgment. Id. But this deferential standard does not apply to the substantive

rules of law, which are reviewed de novo just as they are in appeals from a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-2827 | November 4, 2020 Page 3 of 5 court of general jurisdiction. Lae, 789 N.E.2d at 483. The issue in this case turns

on the meaning of the parties’ July 2018 contract, which is a pure question of

law and is reviewed de novo. Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065,

1068 (Ind. 2006). When a contract is clear and unambiguous, the language

must be given its plain meaning. Tippecanoe Valley Sch. Corp. v. Landis, 698

N.E.2d 1218, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied.

[7] Facility Maintenance argues Brown Sprinkler breached the contract because the

suppression system “was to be installed pursuant to all local codes, which

included the fire department’s release of the FDC.” Appellant’s Br. p. 7.

However, the contract contains no mention of the fire department’s approval or

“release,” requiring only compliance with “local state and city building

codes[.]” Ex. p. 4. The plain meaning of the term “building code” does not

include a fire department’s “release,” and Facility Maintenance fails to offer

evidence or legal authority suggesting the fire department’s release is a code

requirement. And tellingly, Facility Maintenance cites no code provision the

current FDC location allegedly violates. In contrast, Brown Sprinkler testified

repeatedly that the original design and location of the FDC was code

compliant, as the original location made the FDC “accessible by all of the

things [] the fire code requires.” Tr. p. 32. Nonetheless, the fire department

could request a relocation because it has the authority to “throw[] out” the

codebook and “ask for anything[.]” Id. at 31. Because the contract required only

code compliance, and Brown Sprinkler offered evidence all their work complied

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-2827 | November 4, 2020 Page 4 of 5 with the code, it was reasonable for the small-claims court to conclude that the

relocation of the FDC was not covered under the contract.

[8] Based on this evidence, the judgment for Brown Sprinkler is not clearly

erroneous.

[9] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-2827 | November 4, 2020 Page 5 of 5