Gladys Williams, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Sanchez Roofing and Construction, Inc., Appellee-Defendant (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Gladys Williams hired Sanchez Roofing and Construction, Inc. (“Sanchez Roofing”) to replace her hail-damaged roof. After the work was done, Williams was dissatisfied with the color of the shingles, was concerned that the roof sagged, and claimed that the new roof leaked. She sued Sanchez Roofing in small claims court. Sanchez Roofing counterclaimed for the unpaid balance due under the terms of the contract. The small claims court entered judgment against Williams on her claim and for Sanchez Roofing on its counterclaim in the amount of $7,707.80. Williams appeals both rulings, and we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Williams contracted with Sanchez Roofing to replace her roof following a hail-damage insurance claim with her homeowner's insurer, Allstate. The scope of work was defined by Allstate's estimate, which Sanchez Roofing incorporated into its contract. The total contract price was $12,707.80. Williams paid a $5,000.00 deposit.

[3] When Sanchez Roofing's crew removed the damaged shingles, they found some rotten wood in the decking underneath. Williams contacted Allstate, which told her decking replacement was not covered under her policy. A Sanchez Roofing supervisor named Ruby ¹ told Williams not to worry about paying for the wood because he had material available. Sanchez Roofing installed gray shingles. After the shingles were installed, Williams observed the roof was wavy and sagging. She reported the problem to Sanchez Roofing, and the owner, Hugo Sanchez (“Hugo”), came to the house and attempted to fix the sag by installing two-by-fours inside the attic to reinforce the roof from below. Nevertheless, the roof continued to sag. Williams also reported that the roof leaked. Hugo visited the house and saw no signs of leaking. He told Williams to call him again if there was an active leak and he would come fix it because the roof had a ten-year warranty.

[4] Williams filed a claim against Sanchez Roofing in small claims court that sought return of her $5,000.00 downpayment for the roof. Sanchez Roofing filed a counterclaim that sought $11,666.80, which represented the full contract price of $12,707.80, minus the $5,000.00 deposit, and plus extras totaling $3,959.00. The extras included a building permit, replacement decking, replacement wood planks, and an ice-water barrier. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court took the matter under advisement. The court subsequently entered judgment against Williams on her claim and for Sanchez Roofing on its counterclaim in the amount of $7,707.80, which represented the original contract price minus Williams's $5,000.00 deposit.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Small claims judgments are “subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes.” Eagle Aircraft, Inc. v. Trojnar, 983 N.E.2d 648, 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A)). We may neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses, Dorfman Prop. Mgmt. v. Edwards, 106 N.E.3d 495, 498 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), and we must consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Dorsett v. Lubitz, 213 N.E.3d 1058, 1061 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). Where judgment runs against the party bearing the burden of proof, we reverse only if the evidence is without conflict and leads to a single conclusion opposite the one reached by the trial court. Eppl v. DiGiacomo, 946 N.E.2d 646, 649 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Where judgment runs in favor of the burden-bearing party, we affirm if the record permitted a reasonable trier of fact to find “the elements of the party's claim were established by a preponderance of evidence.” Eagle Aircraft, 983 N.E.2d at 657.

1. Williams's Claim

[6] Williams bore the burden of proof on her claim, so the judgment against her is a negative judgment that we will not disturb unless the evidence is without conflict and leads only to a conclusion in her favor. See Eppl, 946 N.E.2d at 649. Indiana law implies a duty in every contract for services that the work will be performed “skillfully, carefully, and in a workmanlike manner.” Correct Roofing, Inc. v. Vasquez, 246 N.E.3d 328, 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Failure to perform in a workmanlike manner may constitute a breach of contract. Farah, LLC v. Architura Corp., 952 N.E.2d 328, 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Williams contends Sanchez Roofing breached this duty in three respects: the shingle color is wrong, the roof is wavy or sags, and the new roof leaks.

[7] Regarding the shingle color, the trial court heard directly conflicting accounts. Williams testified she selected black shingles with Ruby and told the on-site workers the gray shingles were wrong, but the workers refused to stop installation because they had to follow Ruby's instructions. Hugo testified Sanchez Roofing's practice is to have customers select colors verbally, without written documentation. He also testified that Williams never raised the color issue with him at any point before trial. The trial court was entitled to weigh these competing accounts, and the fact that it resolved the credibility question against Williams is not a basis for us to reverse.

[8] Regarding the waviness of the roof, the parties agree the roof sags, but they disagree sharply about why. Williams attributed the defect to Sanchez Roofing's installation of new shingles over rotten decking, and she testified that other roofers told her they could fix the problem by replacing the decking. However, Sanchez Roofing attributed the wave in the roof to the pre-existing bowing of rafters built from two-by-fours that were nearly one hundred years old. According to Hugo, the wave in the roof could only be fixed with new rafters. This is precisely the kind of factual dispute – competing lay and quasi-expert opinions on the cause of a problem – that a trial exists to resolve. The trial court apparently believed Hugo's explanation, which was within its province, and we may not reassess the credibility of the witnesses or reweigh the evidence.

[9] Regarding the leak, Williams testified the roof still leaked after the replacement. Hugo testified that, when he visited the house after Williams's report of a leak, he saw no signs of a new leak. Hugo acknowledged water damage existed inside Williams's house, but according to Hugo that damage predated Sanchez Roofing's work. Hugo also testified that a ten-year warranty covers any such defect in the roof and Williams only needs to call him if the roof leaks. Again, the trial court heard conflicting evidence and resolved it against Williams. That resolution is not clearly erroneous.

[10] Because the evidence on each of Williams's three complaints was in conflict, we cannot overturn the trial court's judgment against her.

2. Sanchez Roofing's Counterclaim

[11] Regarding Sanchez Roofing's counterclaim, Sanchez Roofing bore the burden of proof, and we affirm if the evidence permitted a reasonable trier of fact to find the elements established by a preponderance. See Eagle Aircraft, 983 N.E.2d at 657. A contractor seeking to recover the unpaid balance of a construction contract must prove it “substantially performed [its] contract obligations or offered to do so.” SCI Ind. Funeral Servs., Inc. v. D.O. McComb & Sons, Inc., 820 N.E.2d 700, 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Kesler v. Marshall, 792 N.E.2d 893, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied), trans. denied.

[12] The evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment supports the trial court's implicit finding of substantial performance by Sanchez Roofing, as Williams did not prove any of her claims against Sanchez Roofing. Hugo testified that every item in the Allstate-authorized contract scope was completed except for a rain cap valued at $168.00. Williams herself acknowledged at trial that Sanchez performed all the work listed on the contract. The trial court awarded Sanchez Roofing the unpaid base contract balance of $7,707.80, but not the $3,959.00 that Sanchez Roofing sought for wood, ice barrier, and a building permit. The trial court's determination that Sanchez Roofing was entitled to be paid the remainder of the contracted price for the roof, which was installed in a workmanlike manner, was not clearly erroneous.

Conclusion

[13] We affirm the trial court's judgment against Williams on her claim and for Sanchez Roofing on its counterclaim.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Williams identified this man as “Mr. Ruby” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 8), and Hugo Sanchez, the owner of Sanchez Roofing, confirmed that Ruby worked for him, but neither provided Ruby's full name.

May, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Scheele, J., concur.