Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D purchased residential property (the property) in Sturtevant, Wisconsin, at a foreclosure sale. The property was previously owned by David and Debra Gregory, who arranged with D to remain at the residence under a lease agreement giving the Gregorys an option to repurchase the property. The lease provided that the Gregorys would be responsible for all repairs and maintenance. In the summer of 1994, David Gregory asked P whether he could use the fill dirt from the excavation of a nearby house to level and grade low spots on the property. Gregory signed a hold-harmless agreement stating that neither P nor the other owner would be 'responsible for any damage to [D's] property in regards to grading and filling of property.' No further agreements were made regarding P's work on the property. While P was filling and grading the property, D frequently visited the Gregorys because they were having difficulty making their lease payments. In November, D evicted the Gregorys from the property because of their inability to pay the lease. At approximately the same time, P completed its fill and grading work on the property and forwarded D an invoice for the work in the amount of $17,150. D declined to pay the invoice because he claimed that the work was performed at the Gregorys' request, not his. P then filed suit in Racine County Circuit Court seeking relief on the grounds of breach of contract and quantum meruit. At a bench trial, the court determined that although no written contract or contract implied existed between P and D, there was a contract implied in law. The court awarded P damages in the amount of the value of the services, plus costs, under a quantum meruit theory of recovery. D subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court denied his motion and D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co