CABELLO v. INTEGRITY BACKYARD BUILDS LLC (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Adam Cabello appeals from a negative judgment entered on his small claim against Integrity Backyard Builds, LLC (Integrity). He presents one issue for our review which we restate as: whether the court erred when it entered a judgment for Integrity based upon Cabello's failure to meet his burden of proof. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In March 2021, Cabello contracted Integrity to install several outdoor projects at his property including a concrete driveway addition, an inground pool and accompanying equipment, cement pool decking, and surrounding landscaping.¹ Cabello and Integrity subsequently executed five addenda for additional work including installation of an automatic, retractable pool cover.

[3] On February 22, 2024, Cabello filed a small claim against Integrity.² The court held a bench trial on August 8 and September 12. Cabello testified about his dissatisfaction with several projects Integrity completed. He first stated that the addition to the driveway was “too short” and did not “match the scope of work or what was discussed[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 7. Integrity, by its representative, Ryan Thompson, later testified that the position of an electrical line required the original plans for the driveway addition to be shortened. Thompson and Cabello “reviewed the site together on site and made the decisions that the car pad was going to be shortened” and the extra concrete would be used to extend the pool deck. Id. at 38.

[4] Cabello also testified about his dissatisfaction with the retractable pool cover, which was tearing when it dragged along rough edges of the stamped concrete pool deck.³ Upon learning about the tears from Cabello, Thomspon immediately contacted the pool cover manufacturer for solutions. Thompson testified that the manufacturer indicated the pool cover still met all regulations and did not need replacement. However, Integrity offered to patch the pool cover “for visual purposes” and to raise the pool cover to minimize future dragging. Id. at 41.

[5] In its written order, issued on October 1, the court noted that Cabello's complaint “request[ed] payment for [Integrity's] failure to complete construction service work in a quality and workmanlike manner.” App. Vol. II p. 5. The court ordered as follows:

[T]he Court FINDS that [Cabello] failed to meet the required burden of proof to prevail as the testimony provided in support of the claim for relief relied solely on [Cabello's] own personal opinion and additional hearsay information concerning the alleged defects. The Court determines the evidence provided is not sufficient to rebut the information provided by [Integrity] concerning the project completed and quality of the services provided. Additionally, and pursuant to Exhibit I, [Cabello] did not respond to [Integrity's] information provided concerning a potential solution to [Cabello's] complaint regarding the pool cover, therefore depriving [Integrity] of the opportunity to address and cure [Cabello's] complaint.

Id. at 5-6. Accordingly, the court entered a judgment in favor of Integrity.⁴ This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Cabello had the burden of proof to prevail on his small claim against Integrity, and he appeals from a negative judgment.

On appeal from a negative judgment, this Court will reverse the trial court only if the judgment is contrary to law. A judgment is contrary to law if the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial court reached an opposite conclusion. In determining whether the trial court's judgment is contrary to law, we will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses.

Ayers v. Stowers, 200 N.E.3d 480, 483 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (citation omitted).

[7] Cabello argues the court “did not apply proper weight to the Appellant's personal opinion and satisfaction with completion of the contract.” Appellant's Br. p. 6. He also asserts that because the portions of the contract admitted into evidence—i.e. the five addenda only—do not contain a satisfaction clause, a standard of good faith should have been used to determine if the client was personally satisfied with the work completed. In support of his argument, Cabello relies on his own testimony, contending that it was sufficient to prove his honest, aesthetic dissatisfaction with Integrity's work. He also references the weight the court gave to several exhibits admitted at trial, including replacement or repair quotes he received from other contractors and an email exchange regarding Integrity's proposed solutions. Cabello's argument is a direct request to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Ayers, 200 N.E.3d at 483.

[8] Although Cabello's original complaint is absent from the Record, the court's order notes that Cabello sought damages for Integrity's failure to complete the work in a workmanlike manner. The evidence supports the court's conclusion that Cabello failed to meet his burden of proof to prevail on such a claim. Despite Cabello's assertion that he was dissatisfied with the size of the driveway addition, the evidence showed that Integrity and Cabello discussed changes to original plans and Cabello agreed to the modifications. The trial court was in the best position to determine which version of events was correct. As to the pool cover, Integrity installed the stamped concrete and pool cover in accordance with Cabello's request and the contract addenda. And upon learning about Cabello's concerns, Integrity immediately offered a solution that Cabello did not accept. We cannot say this evidence leads us to a sole conclusion, opposite of the court's judgment. See id. The court's judgment in favor of Integrity is not contrary to law.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The full contract is not in the Record; the Record only contains five addenda to the contract.

2.   A copy of Cabello's complaint is not in the Record.

3.   Thompson testified that stamped concrete means “there are – by design – certain irregularities in the texture” of the concrete. Tr. Vol. II p. 47.

4.   The court characterizes its disposition of this matter as a “dismiss[al] with prejudice.” App. Vol. II p. 6. However, this matter proceeded to a bench trial and judgment was entered for Integrity on the merits. We, therefore, proceed to analyze our review of this case as an appeal from a negative judgment.

Scheele, Judge.

May, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.