AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between Excel Builders and Developers, LLC (Excel), and Sean Gabaldon (Sean) over damages to a home owned by Excel. Excel had an oral agreement with Sean to sell the home to him for his wife, Brenda Penner-Gabaldon (Brenda), and their children in anticipation of Sean and Brenda's divorce. Excel agreed to rent the home to Brenda until Sean could secure financing, with Sean agreeing to pay the rent and ensure the home was in good condition if the purchase fell through. After Brenda decided she no longer wanted the home and vacated, Excel found significant damage and incurred repair and cleaning expenses (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Excel): Argued that Sean breached an oral agreement to take care of any damages to the home if the sale fell through and sought to recover repair and cleaning expenses under the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act (UORRA) (paras 5-6).
• Defendant-Appellant (Sean): Contended that he was not a "resident" under the UORRA, challenged the admissibility of evidence regarding the oral agreement, disputed the sufficiency of evidence supporting the district court's findings, and argued that the statute of frauds rendered his oral agreements unenforceable (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in finding Sean liable for damages based on an oral agreement not explicitly mentioned in the complaint.
• Whether parol evidence outside of the Option Agreement was admissible.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's findings.
• Whether the statute of frauds rendered Sean's oral agreements unenforceable.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment in favor of Excel and against Sean and Brenda jointly and severally for $9,448.73 was affirmed (para 16).

Reasons

• GARCIA, Judge (with SUTIN and VANZI, Judges concurring): The court found substantial evidence supporting the existence of an oral agreement between Sean and Excel, where Sean agreed to take care of damages to the home if the sale fell through. The court concluded that the complaint provided Sean with fair notice of the claim against him, that the oral agreements were central to the litigation, and that the statute of frauds did not apply to Sean's promise to pay for damages. The court also determined that the findings regarding Brenda acting as Sean's agent and Sean's control over the residence were unnecessary to support the judgment (paras 8-15).