Kim Garrigus v. Chad Burnett D/B/A Heartland Garage, Inc., 2020 CA 000702

Parties contracted on Dec. 31, 2018: Burnett/Heartland to build a 30' x 24' detached garage for $15,912; Garrigus paid a $10,912 retainer.
Appellee installed forms and footers (left in place ~19 days) and poured the concrete foundation on Jan. 24–Feb. 13, 2019.
During the pour Garrigus complained the foundation was in the wrong location and about the dimensions; Appellee said the pour could not be stopped; no further work was performed.
Garrigus sued for breach of contract seeking recovery for removal/correction and related costs.
Graves Circuit Court found no breach proven, accepted Appellee’s $5,661.80 cost for performed work, and awarded Garrigus the remaining retainer of $5,250.20.
Garrigus appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the contract was silent as to placement and that Garrigus offered only her testimony to prove incorrect dimensions or placement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Appellee breached the construction contract by placing/pouring the foundation in the wrong location and to the wrong dimensions	The contract and photos show the garage was not placed as agreed, misaligned with driveway, over utilities, and foundation was smaller than 30' x 24'	Contract drawing does not specify placement; Appellee testified placement and dimensions were correct and work was performed as contracted	No breach — contract silent as to placement and plaintiff offered only her testimony to prove nonconformity; trial court's credibility findings upheld
Whether plaintiff failed to mitigate damages	Garrigus argued she suffered pecuniary loss and needed costs to remove/redo foundation	Appellee contended mitigation was not shown and, because no breach was proved, mitigation is moot	Moot / not reached on the merits because no breach was found; court noted plaintiff bore burden to show mitigation only if breach proved

Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, Inc. v. Dunaway, 490 S.W.3d 691 (Ky. 2016) (unenforced written instrument is to be applied according to its terms when unambiguous)
Barnett v. Mercy Health Partners-Lourdes, Inc., 233 S.W.3d 723 (Ky. App. 2007) (elements required to prove breach of contract)
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Golightly, 976 S.W.2d 409 (Ky. 1998) (standard for reviewing factual findings under CR 52.01)
Kentucky State Racing Comm’n v. Fuller, 481 S.W.2d 298 (Ky. 1972) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94 S.W.3d 381 (Ky. App. 2002) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
Lawson v. Loid, 896 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. 1995) (deference to trial judge on witness credibility under CR 52.01)
Jones v. Marquis Terminal, Inc., 454 S.W.3d 849 (Ky. App. 2014) (burden on breaching party to prove plaintiff failed to mitigate damages)