Mordhorst Cleaning v. Cardamone
23CA0781
| Colo. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2024Background
- Geoff and Katie Cardamone hired Mordhorst Cleaning, LLC (d/b/a Blue Ribbon) as general contractor for repairs after water damage in their new home.
- Two contracts were signed (fire suppression system repair and water damage); both provided for cost-plus pricing and a 10% overhead, but no fixed price.
- The Cardamones’ insurance was insufficient, and after seeking more cost info (which Blue Ribbon refused to provide), their relationship dissolved, and Blue Ribbon stopped work.
- Blue Ribbon invoiced the Cardamones for $13,940.54, which was unpaid; Blue Ribbon sued for the balance, and the Cardamones counterclaimed for breach, civil theft, and unjust enrichment.
- After a bench trial, the court found for the Cardamones on most claims, awarding them $8,768.74 after offsetting damages.
- The Cardamones appealed certain adverse rulings, including on claims for civil theft and unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil theft based on failure to pay subcontractors | Blue Ribbon did not receive funds earmarked for unpaid subcontractors (Ridge, TCC, ERS); any amounts not paid were not received for those purposes | Cardamones argued Blue Ribbon knowingly failed to pay subcontractors after receiving funds intended for them | For Blue Ribbon; Cardamones failed to prove Blue Ribbon received or misapplied such funds or acted with criminal intent |
| Unjust enrichment—cabinet markup | Price for cabinets fixed in separate, signed contracts; markup was negotiated and agreed to | Cardamones asserted the markup exceeded the 20% in primary contracts and was excessive/unfair | For Blue Ribbon; express contracts controlled, precluding unjust enrichment recovery |
| Unjust enrichment—personal property services | Insurance covered the expenses; serving as middleman with Cardamones’ agent’s knowledge, not unjust | Blue Ribbon retained a portion of funds for facilitating personal property claims, despite no contract or Cardamones’ agreement | For Blue Ribbon; Cardamones failed to prove uncovered loss or lack of approval, so no unjust enrichment |
| Award for unpleaded framing cost | Amount was tried by consent at trial without objection, so recoverable | Cardamones argued Blue Ribbon could not recover an amount not pleaded in the complaint | For Blue Ribbon; issue was tried by consent and Cardamones were not prejudiced |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Anderson, 773 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1989) (clarified culpable mental state requirement for civil theft under the trust fund statute)
- Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, 2012 CO 46 (Colo. 2012) (bench trial standard of review and deference to trial court factual findings)
- Pulte Home Corp. v. Countryside Cmty. Ass’n, 2016 CO 64 (Colo. 2016) (unjust enrichment available only in absence of express contract)