Martinez v. Calata

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 3

4 ROGER MARTINEZ DC., ) dba ADIO CHIROPRACTIC ) SMALL CLAIMS CASE NO. SD0019-13 5 ) 6 Plaintiff, ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 7 vs. ) ) 8 ESTELA L. CALATA, ) 9 ) Defendant. ) 10 ) 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13

14 The matter before the Court came on Roger Martinez ("Plaintiff') claims against Estel

15 Calata ("Defendant") for breach of contract for chiropractic services rendered by Plaintiff t 16 Defendant. On May 10, 2013, a trial in this matter was held before the Honorable Benjamin C. 17 Sison, Jr. who took the matter under advisement. Plaintiff appeared Pro Se and Defendan 18

19 appeared through her attorney, William L. Gavras, Esq. Having reviewed the evidence presente

20 and the applicable law, the Court now issues its Decision and Order. 21

22 FACTS 23 On or about February 25, 2011, Defendant sustained physical injuries from a moto 24

25 vehicle accident. Defendant sued alleged responsible parties for damages resulting from th

27 chiropractic services to treat Defendant for her injuries sustained from the accident. The one 28 page document provides for an insurance lien against any settlement payments to be made t

Page I of5 Plaintiff in payment for chiropractic services rendered to Defendant. In addition, Defendan 2 expressly agreed to "cover or pay for all charges" not covered by any insurance proceeds an 3 provides for a one and one-half percent (1.5%) interest on unpaid charges. The execute 4

5 agreement did not specifY the costs to Defendant for chiropractic services, nor does it provid

6 when interest charges start to accrue or when payments would be due.

7 From March 2011 to May 2011, Defendant received chiropractic services from anothe 8 service provider and copies of invoices from that service provider were provided to the Court a 9 trial. Defendant claims that she sought treatment from Plaintiff because Plaintiff told her that hi 10

II services would be "cheaper". However the parties prior to Defendant seeking treatment fro

I2 Plaintiff never discussed the exact costs for these services. From June 4, 2011 to November 11 13 2011, Defendant received chiropractic services from Plaintiff. After each office visit, Defendan I4 initialed a form acknowledging the services provided. Defendant however claims that at no tim I5 was she provided with the costs of the services until she received an invoice after all the service I6

17 had been provided. It is apparent that Plaintiff was not paid directly from any insurance proceed

18 as a result of the Defendant's lawsuit stemming from her automobile accident. 19 Plaintiff at trial did not produce any evidence that Defendant was informed of the costs o 20 the services at any time during the service period. However Defendant also did not argue at tria 21 that the services rendered by Plaintiff were unnecessary. The only invoice provided to the cou 22

23 by Plaintiff was one dated January 25, 2012, two months after the last series of treatment

24 provided to Defendant. Plaintiff now seeks payment for the services rendered under the writte 25 agreement plus interest in the amount of Seven Thousand Two Hundred Ten Dollars and Zer 26 Cents ($7,21 0.00). Defendant asserts that there was never a "meeting of the minds" concernin 27

28 the costs of the chiropractic services, that all amounts agreed to be paid for said services were i

Page 2 of5 fact paid, or in the alternative, the costs of the services provided are less than the amount 2 Plaintiff contends are owed. 3

4 LAW AND ARGUMENT 5

6 We first address the issue of whether the written document executed by Defendan

7 constitutes a legal and binding contract. The three recognized elements of a contract are an offer 8 acceptance, and consideration. See Title 18 GCA § 85102 (1992) Moreover, in order to mee 9 their burden in establishing the existence of a contract, plaintiffs must show an offer o 10

11 agreement to encompass all "essential terms". Mobil Oil Guam Inc. v. Tendido, 2004 W

12 1013367 (Guam Terr.) citing Magill v. Nelbro Packing Co., 43 P.3d 140, 142 (Alaska 2001). 13 Where an agreement does not include an essential term, the contract is unenforceable. See Smit 14 v. House of Kenton Corp., 209 S.E.2d 397, 399-400 (N.C.Ct.App.1974) (holding that a p 15 could not recover damages for breach of a rental contract where the offer and agreement did no 16

17 contain essential terms such as the time and manner of payment of rent). Turning to th

18 document executed by the Defendant with Plaintiff, it is clear that the purported agreement i 19 lacking in that no express payment terms were agreed upon by the parties including i) the cost 20 of chiropractic services and ii) the time for payment for said services and any accrued interes 21 charges. The court finds that such payment terms are "essential terms" under any contract fo 22

23 services and because such terms were lacking, we find the written agreement executed b

24 Defendant to be unenforceable as a matter of law. The court further agrees that Plaintiff an 25 Defendant never reached a "meeting of the minds" with respect to the costs of the chiropracti 26 services provided by Plaintiff. 27

28 While there is no enforceable contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintif

Page 3 of5 nevertheless is entitled to recover under the doctrine of Quantum Meruit. The "essence o 2 quantum meruit liability is the receipt of a benefit by one party which would be inequitable fo 3 that party to retain. The elements of quantum meruit distilled from this essence are th 4

5 performance of services by the Plaintiff, the receipt of the benefit of those services by th

6 Defendant, and the unjustness of the Defendant's retention of that benefit without compensatin 7 the plaintiff." See Tanaguchi-Ruth v MDI Guam Corporation, 2005 WL 735938 (Gu 8 Terr.)(2005). In the present case it is indisputable that Plaintiff performed chiropractic service 9 on Defendant with the expectation of payment for such services and while no enforceabl 10

ll contract exists, denying any form of compensation to Plaintiff for such services would be unjust.

12 The measure of recovery for quantum meruit, is the "value of the services, measuring th 13 value in the labor market where the service itself was sought by defendant". Id. At tria 14 Defendant did not dispute that the services rendered by Plaintiff were unnecessary or of poo 15 quality. Defendant complains only that the amounts charged were more expensive than sh 16

17 anticipated, based on alleged representations by Plaintiff that the costs of Plaintiff's service

18 would be cheaper than that of her previous chiropractor. In reviewing the invoices submitted b 19 Defendant from a previous chiropractor, the court notes that the amounts charged by Plaintiff fo 20 similar services are comparable. Consequently, the court finds the charges assessed by Plaintif 21

22 to be reasonable and proper.

24 CONCLUSION 25 Plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of the services he rendered to Defendant unde 26 the doctrine of Quantum lllferuit. Accordingly, Judgment is rendered against Defendant on behal 27

Page 4 of5 of the Plaintiff in the amount of Seven Thousand Two Hundred Ten Dollars and Zero Cent 2 ($7,210.00). The parties shall bear their own attorneys fees and costs. 3

4 SO ORDERED this _ _ day _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,2013. 5

9 Superior Court of Guam 10

_______ 26_

Page 5 of5