Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central dispute concerned the quality of flooring work performed and whether contractual obligations were fulfilled.

• The trial judge’s reliance on unjust enrichment, a doctrine not pleaded or argued, became a pivotal issue on appeal.

• Inconsistencies between oral and written reasons for judgment raised questions about which should be considered authoritative.

• The trial judge’s failure to address the actual contractual issue—quality of work—was deemed a legal error.

• The necessity of corroborating evidence for claims of defective work was questioned but not fully resolved.

• The appeal resulted in the original decision being set aside, a new trial ordered, and costs awarded to the appellant.

Facts of the case

Judy Radan engaged Urban View Contracting Inc. to install new floors in her condominium following water damage from a leak. The total invoice for the work was $27,346, of which Ms. Radan paid half upfront, with the remainder due upon completion. Dissatisfied with the quality of Urban’s work, despite some remedial efforts by the contractor, Ms. Radan refused to pay the balance and instead hired another contractor for $12,228.36 to address the deficiencies. She subsequently sold the apartment.

Trial and initial decision

At trial, both parties represented themselves. Urban’s principal, Joe D’Annunzio, and Ms. Radan each testified, and both were found credible. The agreement was oral, and the work was to be covered by Ms. Radan’s insurance due to the initial leak. Urban admitted to certain defects, including using a thinner underlay, not cleaning up glue and dust, improper caulking, and not paying a subcontractor. The deputy judge ruled in favor of Urban, awarding $18,813.37, and provided both oral and written reasons for the decision.

Policy terms and legal doctrines at issue

The dispute centered on whether Urban fulfilled its contractual obligations and whether Ms. Radan was justified in withholding payment due to alleged defects. Notably, the trial judge applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment, despite it not being pleaded or argued by either party. In her oral reasons, the judge emphasized that Ms. Radan benefited from Urban’s work when selling her property, framing this as unjust enrichment. The written reasons, however, downplayed unjust enrichment, mentioning it only as an additional consideration alongside the contractual breach.

Appeal and judicial analysis

Ms. Radan appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by deciding the case on the basis of unjust enrichment and by intervening unduly during the trial. The appellate court focused on the unjust enrichment issue, noting that the oral reasons made it the central theme, while the written reasons relegated it to a side note. The appellate judge determined that oral reasons should be considered the primary rationale unless the trial judge explicitly states otherwise. Here, the written reasons did not merely correct grammar but substantially altered the basis for the decision, which was not permissible.

The appellate court found that the trial judge’s reliance on unjust enrichment was a legal error, as it was irrelevant to the core issue—whether Urban had performed its contractual obligations to the required standard. The judge’s focus on Ms. Radan’s profit from the sale of her condo was not pertinent to the contractual dispute over workmanship.

Ruling and outcome

The appeal was allowed, the original decision was set aside, and a new trial was ordered. The court encouraged the parties to resolve the matter without further litigation. Costs of $4,000 were awarded to Ms. Radan, the appellant. No final amount was awarded on the substantive claim, as the matter was remitted for a new trial.