COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72739 MICHAEL WILLIFORD : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND Plaintiff-appellant : OPINION : -vs- : : MICHAEL PRICE : : Defendant-appellee : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 14, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court Case No. CVI-970336 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee: MICHAEL TROY WATSON, ESQ. MICHAEL PRICE, PRO SE WATSON & WATSON 2000 Lee Road, Suite 20 1367 East Sixth Street, Suite 400 Cleveland Hts., Ohio 44118 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 -2- DYKE, P.J.: Plaintiff Michael Williford appeals from the judgment of the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court entered in favor of defendant Michael Price in plaintiff's action for quantum meruit recovery. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. On April 1, 1997, plaintiff filed this action against defendant, seeking $1,002 for carpentry services rendered. The matter came on for hearing before a magistrate on April 28, 1997. As the hearing commenced, plaintiff indicated that he sought payment for partial work, not complete work undertaken in connection with finishing defendant's basement and performing other services at defendant's home. (Tr. 2). Plaintiff testified that he entered into a series of verbal agreements with defendant for various services at defendant's home. Plaintiff agreed to finish defendant's basement, which included the installation of crown and decorative moldings and baseboard for $400. He also agreed to clean the gutters, rake the yard and remove a fallen tree for $275. Finally, plaintiff agreed to install green board in defendant's patio for $55. Plaintiff admitted that defendant never signed the contract which set forth the payment amounts, but defendant did give him a key, authorized him to begin work, and made partial payment of $150. Plaintiff also admitted that there were problems in the installation of the crown molding but he testified that he explained to defendant that he would do whatever it took to correct -3- the job at his own expense. According to plaintiff, defendant did not bar him from the premises, but defendant *** demanded that he wanted things done specifically. *** He is not even allowing me to finish. He's coming in there trying to tell me how to do every little facet of my job. It was just getting annoying and I said, well, at this point, sir, I would request that you pay me up to date. I have my crew out there and they need their money. And he said, I am not paying you nothing. (Tr. 55). Plaintiff acknowledged, however, that the parties had originally agreed that plaintiff would be paid upon completion of the work. He also testified that he did not remove the tree but did clean the gutters and rake the yard. Plaintiff asked for an award of $705 for the basement carpentry work, $67.88 for tool rental, $25 for hauling material, $70 for cleaning the gutters, $200 for raking leaves, and $85 for installing green board on the patio. Defendant contended that the parties agreed that plaintiff would install the decorative molding, crown molding, and chair rail in the basement, and paint and trim the area for $325. They further agreed that plaintiff would receive $85 for finishing the patio, $200 for raking and removing the tree, and $70 for cleaning the gutters. Defendant acknowledged that plaintiff did an outstanding job on the gutter work. (Tr. 75). Defendant complained, however, that the raking was only partially completed, the tree was not removed, and the remaining work in the basement and patio was not performed in a workmanlike manner. -4- Defendant presented the testimony of Cleveland Heights Housing Inspector Gary Walczak. Walczak testified that he viewed the premises on April 8, 1997, and in his opinion, the basement finishing was not undertaken in a professional manner. According to Walczak, the drywall was bowed in places and, due to this bowing, there were gaps between the drywall and the finish carpentry. In addition, the crown molding and chair rail were installed with small pieces of wood and there were noticeable gaps between many of the pieces. In some areas, glue was visible from a previous attempt to simply glue the wood to the drywall, and in other areas, nail heads were visible in the wood. In other areas, the crown molding was not completed. Decorative moldings were installed but were not properly spaced, according to Walczak. With regard to the remainder of the work, Walczak testified that green board had been applied to the patio but it was not primed and the joints were not taped. The magistrate found that the evidence supports defendant's version of the contract price. The magistrate further found that the basement carpentry work was not performed in a workmanlike and satisfactory manner and the installation of the green board on the porch was incomplete. The magistrate then concluded that the $150 which plaintiff had already received from defendant was reasonable compensation for the work performed satisfactorily. The trial court accepted the referee's findings of fact and conclusions and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff now appeals and assigns two errors for our review. -5- Plaintiff's assignments of error are interrelated and state: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT DID NOT SUBSTANTIALLY PERFORM THE WORK IN A WORKMANLIKE MANNER PURSUANT TO 18 O JUR.3D SECTION 231 FOR THE REASON THAT PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED FROM PERFORMING HIS OBLIGATION FULLY UNDER THE CONTRACT BY DEFENDANT/APPELLEE. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ON A QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY FOR THE REASON THAT DEFENDANT/APPELLEE HAD ONLY AN ESTI- MATE OF WORK TO BE COMPLETED NOT THE COMPLETED WORK ITSELF, THEREFORE THE APPLICATION OF THE QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY DOES NOT APPLY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. Within these assignments of error, plaintiff complains that defendant's conduct prevented him from completing the work and he is therefore entitled to the full amounts of compensation as set forth in the parties' original oral agreements. In general, a party's nonperformance of a contract will be excused where that party is prevented by the other party from performing, see Dynes Corp. V. Siekel, Koly & Co., Inc. (1994), 100 Ohio App.3d 620, 641. In this instance, however, the record does not support the conclusion that defendant prevented plaintiff from completing the work. Rather, the record demonstrates that plaintiff voluntarily ceased work after defendant expressed his dismay with the quality of his workmanship. Thus, plaintiff's claim that defendant's conduct excuses plaintiff's nonperformance is not well-founded based upon the record in this instance. Cf. L.A.& D., Inc. v. Bd. Of Commrs. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 384, 388. -6- We further note that by plaintiff's own admission, the parties expressly agreed that he would be paid when the work was complete (Tr. 61). Since the express terms of payment were subsequently abandoned, compensation was derived in relation to the reasonable value of the work performed. Inger Interiors v. Peralta (1986), 30 Ohio App.3d 94, 96 ( Absent any contractual agreement, the customers presumably undertook to pay for the reasonable value [of the services.] ) Accord Lucas v. Constantini (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 367-370; Legros v. Tarr (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 1, 6-7. See, also, Shaw v. J. Pollock & Co. (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 656, 662, wherein the court stated: In contrast to express contracts or contracts implied in fact, obligations recognized pursuant to a theory of unjust enrichment arise by operation of law and do not depend upon the intentions of the parties. Hummel v. Hummel (1938), 133 Ohio St. 520, 525-528, 11 O.O. 221, 223-225, 14 N.E.2d 923, 925-927; Legros v. Tarr (1989), 44 Ohio St.2d 1, 6-8, 540 N.E.2d 257, 262-265. Civil liability may be imposed to prevent an injustice when one party retains a benefit from another's labors. Rice v. Wheeling Dollar Savings & Trust Co. (1951), 155 Ohio St. 391, 44 O.O. 374, 99 N.E.2d 301, paragraph three of the syllabus; Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Reds (1984), 19 Ohio App.3d 227, 230-231; 19 OBR 378, 381-382, 483 N.E.2d 1181, 1184-1185. The general rule of damages is that the aggrieved party is entitled simply to restitution for the actual services provided. See 30 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1981) 45, Damages, Section 39; Sykes Constr. Co. v. Martell(Jan. 8, 1992), Summit App. Nos. 15034 and 15038, unreported, at 9-10, 1992 WL 2919. Accordingly, we conclude that the lower court properly considered the issue of compensation in relation to the reasonable value of the work which was actually performed. Moreover, no evidence has been offered to demonstrate that the court's award of $150, the prepaid sum, was erroneous in this instance, as plaintiff -7- was not entitled to compensation for work which was not properly performed. See Jones v. Honchell (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 120, 124. In accordance with the foregoing, we conclude that plaintiff's assignments of error are without merit. Affirmed. -8- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PATTON, J., AND ROCCO, J., CONCUR. ANN DYKE PRESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App. R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App. R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .