TYJUANA DELAYA SMITH v. RONNIE PERKINS PERKINS CONTRACTOR LLC (2022)

Plaintiff, Tyjuana Smith, filed a petition in Baton Rouge City Court on January 17, 2020, contending that she contracted with defendant, Mr. Ronnie Perkins d/b/a Perkins Contractor LLC, to repair her home. She stated that she paid Mr. Perkins $18,000.00, and he completed only “$3000.00 worth of remodeling.” Ms. Smith sought $15,000.00 plus interest from the date of judicial demand. Mr. Perkins answered the petition and filed a reconventional demand, contending that Ms. Smith breached their contract for home repairs and owes the remainder of the unpaid amount due under the contract totaling $31,933.48.

Ms. Smith's petition and Mr. Perkins’ reconventional demand came before the court for a trial on December 13, 2021. After reviewing the exhibits and considering the testimony, the court issued Written Reasons and Final Judgment on December 20, 2021, awarding judgment in favor of Ms. Smith in the sum of $15,000.00 plus legal interest from judicial demand until paid and denying Mr. Perkins’ reconventional demand.

It is from this judgment that Mr. Perkins appeals contending that “The trial court was manifestly erroneous and clearly wrong when it decreed that [Ms. Smith] [met] the preponderance of evidence standard on her main demand and that [Mr. Perkins] failed to meet the preponderance of evidence standard on his reconventional demand.”

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The appropriate standard for appellate review of factual determinations is the manifest error-clearly wrong standard, which precludes the setting aside of a trial court's finding of fact unless the finding is clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its entirety. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). When the trial court's findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error standard demands great deference to the fact finder's conclusions, because “only the factfinder 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, 549 So.2d at 844. Thus, where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Rosell, 549 So. 2d 840 at 844.

Ms. Smith testified that a sewage line broke under her home making her home uninhabitable and necessitating home repairs. She stated that she entered into a contract with Mr. Perkins in January 2019, to complete certain home repairs and improvements. The contract drafted by Mr. Perkins set forth the payment terms including a draw schedule with three payments due. The first draw payment was for $18,000.00, that Ms. Smith agreed to “Pay/advance [Mr. Perkins]...upon the entire House being at least Forty 40% percent of being completed․” According to Ms. Smith, the $18,000.00 was based on insurance money from her sewage line having burst that was given to her mortgage company to provide to her once she hired a licensed person to do the work. She testified that after they entered into the contract, Mr. Perkins had the address on her mortgage records changed to his address, and that he received the check in the amount of $18,066.48 made payable to her from the mortgage company. Ms. Smith said that she met Mr. Perkins at the bank at his request, signed the back of the check, and the check was deposited directly into his account.

Ms. Smith was asked by the court how much work Mr. Perkins completed on her home, and she responded “under $2,000, if that.” Ms. Smith's daughter, Artia Moses also testified and agreed that Mr. Perkins completed a minimal amount of work on her mother's home. Mr. Perkins testified multiple times about the amount of work he completed under the contract. He estimated that he finished approximately 65% of the work based on the condition of the home overall.

During the hearing, Ms. Smith directly asked Mr. Perkins what work he performed under the contract, and she requested proof of the work. Mr. Perkins responded that he provided that information to the insurance company, but Mr. Perkins was unable to testify to any specific work that he completed. Mr. Perkins introduced invoices from Holmes Building Materials and Home Depot that he contended were evidence of work done on Ms. Smith's home, but he did not specify what items were purchased and used for Ms. Smith's home. At the conclusion of the evidence and testimony, the trial court determined that “[Ms. Smith] has preponderated on her main demand” and awarded judgment in her favor and denied Mr. Perkins’ reconventional demand. In so concluding, the trial court clearly found the testimony of Ms. Smith to be more credible than the testimony of Mr. Perkins.

Given the testimony of the parties and evidence introduced into the record, the trial court's finding of fact regarding the amount of work Mr. Perkins completed on Ms. Smith's home is not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. In fact, we find the trial court's conclusion to be a reasonable one, which is amply supported by the record. Having so found, we find Mr. Perkins’ assignment of error lacks merit.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, the December 20, 2021 judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to defendant/appellant, Ronnie Perkins d/b/a Perkins Contractor, LLC.

AFFIRMED.

HESTER, J.