Roger's Backhoe Service, Inc. v. Nichols

681 N.W.2d 647 (2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In early 1998 D decided to build a crematorium on the tract of land on which his funeral home was located. D hired an architect who prepared plans and submitted them to the City of Muscatine for approval. These plans provided that the surface water from the parking lot would drain onto the adjacent street and alley and ultimately enter city storm sewers. These plans were approved by the city. P contracted with D for the demolition of the foundation of a building that had been razed to provide room for the crematorium and removal of the concrete driveway and sidewalk adjacent to that foundation. P completed that work and was paid in full. Naturally, city officials came to the site after construction began. They informed D's construction company that the proposed drainage of surface water onto the street and alley was unsatisfactory. The city now required that an effort be made to drain the surface water into a subterranean creek, which served as part of the city's storm sewer system. The subterranean sewer system was about fourteen feet below the surface of the ground. D was informed of the new requirement. D advised P that he was refusing permission to engage in the exploratory excavation that the city required. Nevertheless, P did engage in digging down to the subterranean sewer system, which was located approximately twenty feet below the surface. When the underground creek was located, city officials examined the brick walls and determined that it was not feasible to penetrate those walls in order to connect the surface water drainage with the underground creek. The city reversed its position and once again gave permission to drain the surface water onto the adjacent street and alley. D refused to pay P for the extra work. The district court found that the amount of the charges submitted by P were fair and reasonable and that they had been performed for D’s benefit and with his tacit approval. P got the verdict. The court of appeals concluded that D should not be able to establish an implied contract because it did not allege any oral or written contract in its petition as required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.418. It also concluded that P had failed to show that its services benefited P. P appealed.