MERCEDE EQUIPMENT RENTAL, INC., AND FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
RICK'S EQUIPMENT RENTAL, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court's judgment in favor of Rick's Equipment Rental on its lien foreclosure claim was affirmed where conflicting evidence regarding dredged yardage was resolved by the trial judge in Rick's favor based on time sheets despite meter readings to the contrary.
Where evidence regarding the quantity of dredged material is conflicting, the trial court's credibility determination favoring the contractor's time sheets over the equipment meter is affirmed on appeal.
[1] A trial court's credibility determination resolving conflicting evidence regarding contract performance is reviewed for abuse of discretion and upheld when supported by c…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMercede Equipment Rental and Rick's Equipment Rental entered into two written contracts for dredging sand fill. Upon completion, the parties disputed …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant, Mercede Equipment Rental, Inc., (Mercede) entered into two written contracts with appellee, Rick’s Equipment Rental, Inc., (Rick’s) to dredge sand fill. When the job was completed and billed, the parties disagreed upon the amount owed, giving rise to the filing of a lien by Rick’s and eventually this lien foreclosure.
Rick’s adduced evidence that it excavated sufficient yardage to justify a bill of $33,-055. While there was evidence that the dredge meter did not support that quantity of dredge material, Rick’s time sheets did support the claim. Furthermore, it was testified that the meter was not always accurate unless the dredge was operating at full speed. Mercede adduced evidence that their measurements showed less fill dredged than called for by the contract. In sum, the evidence was in conflict and the trial judge appears to have been convinced by the evidence adduced in support of Rick’s claim.
With reference to the cross appeal, while the trial court did not rule on the motion to amend the pleadings to meet the proof, we must presume that the trial judge was not convinced that the claim contained therein had not already been paid in one fashion or another. Accordingly, the main appeal and cross appeal are affirmed.
WALDEN, J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P., Associate Judge, concur.