Faye E. Warfield and Keyotta Warfield a/k/a Nicole Warfield v. Jim Dorey d/b/a JRD Construction Services and JRD Enterprises, LLC
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 183
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Faye Warfield owned a residence that sustained hail damage; Liberty Mutual adjuster referred independent contractor Jim Dorey (JRD) to the family.
- On Dec. 16, 2012 Dorey met with Faye’s daughter Keyotta (acting as agent), who signed a written roofing contract naming Faye as the customer; later additions (decking and fireplace) were handwritten and not initialed by the consumer.
- Dorey applied for a contractor license Dec. 12, 2012 and received it March 1, 2013; roof work began July 13, 2013. No building permit was obtained for decking replacement; Dorey posted a door notification that he admitted was false.
- Liberty Mutual issued checks to Faye for the roofing work; Faye never endorsed them and did not pay Dorey.
- Dorey sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; trial court found Keyotta was Faye’s agent, enforced the contract, and awarded judgment to Dorey.
- Court of Appeals reversed: it held Dorey committed an incurable deceptive act under the Home Improvement Contracts Act (HICA), declared the contract void, but allowed recovery in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of work plus prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Dorey’s Argument (Plaintiff) | Warfields’ Argument (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contract violates HICA and must be voided | Contract satisfied parties; consumer received work; deficiencies do not mandate voiding | Contract omitted required HICA elements (start/end dates, supplier address, consumer signature lines), lacked permits, and supplier was unlicensed when soliciting — so it is void | Court found HICA violations, including solicitation before licensing and failure to obtain permits, constituted an incurable deceptive act; contract declared void |
| Whether Dorey can recover despite void contract | Even if contract void, Dorey is entitled to payment for work performed | Warfields argued HICA violations bar enforcement and relief | Court allowed recovery under quantum meruit for fair market value of services performed (sum of invoice amounts) |
| Measure of recovery and interest | Recovery should equal invoiced/contract amounts; prejudgment interest appropriate | Warfields disputed enforcement and amounts | Court adopted invoiced amounts ($8,548.68 roof; $3,677.10 decking; $1,700 fireplace) as reasonable value and remanded to calculate prejudgment interest at 8% per annum |
| Effect on attorney fees | Contract-based fees not enforceable if contract void | Warfields sought to avoid fees | Court held that because contract is void, Dorey is not entitled to attorney fees under the contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Cyr v. J. Yoder, Inc., 762 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (standard of review for findings and conclusions)
- Infinity Prods., Inc. v. Quandt, 810 N.E.2d 1028 (Ind. 2004) (appellate review deference to trial court findings)
- Hayes v. Chapman, 894 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (purpose of HICA to protect consumers; contractors held to strict standard)
- Imperial Restoration & Remodeling, Inc. v. Costello, 965 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (HICA remedies are discretionary; contracts violating HICA are not automatically void)
- Benge v. Miller, 855 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (background on consumer protection rationale for HICA)
- Paul v. Stone Artisans, Ltd., 20 N.E.3d 883 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (factors for balancing whether to void contract for statutory violations)
- Troutwine Estates Dev. Co. v. Comsub Design & Eng’g, Inc., 854 N.E.2d 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (quantum meruit principles and prejudgment interest)
- Mueller v. Karns, 873 N.E.2d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (elements required for unjust enrichment/quantum meruit)
- In re Estate of Carroll, 436 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (measure of quantum meruit recovery)