Christmas Lumber Co., Inc. v. Valiga

99 S.W.3d 585 (2002)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Christmas Lumber Co., Inc. v. Valiga

Tennessee Court of Appeals
99 S.W.3d 585 (2002)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

Christmas Lumber Company, Inc. (Christmas Lumber) (plaintiff) sued Robert Valiga, Robert Waddell, and John Graves (defendants) to recover the cost of building materials Waddell purchased to build a house for Valiga. Waddell was a land surveyor with an architecture degree who decided to go into contracting. Valiga’s house was the first and only house Waddell ever built. Graves was a tax preparer who arranged the contract with Valiga and agreed to help Waddell because it was not tax season. Waddell signed Valiga’s contract on behalf of “R.H. Waddell Construction, Inc.” even though no corporate charter was filed. Waddell did not know who prepared his charter but had purportedly signed it as incorporator on August 19, 1988, although nobody filed it until three months later. Meanwhile, problems with quality arose almost immediately after construction began. In November, Valiga fired Waddell. The next day, Waddell and Graves entered a joint-venture agreement (JVA) stating its purposes were to construct Valiga’s house and “to assure shared liability in the event of a lawsuit” against Waddell and Graves, and that the two would share profits and losses equally. Waddell made amends with Valiga and returned to work on the project in November. Somebody filed Waddell’s corporate charter in December. When Valiga expressed shock over the construction costs the following February, Waddell quit. After Christmas Lumber sued, Valiga brought a separate lawsuit against Waddell and Graves, and the court consolidated the two lawsuits. Christmas Lumber obtained summary judgment for $17,083 against Waddell personally, and Waddell and Graves each paid half. After Graves requested dismissal claiming he could not be personally liable to Valiga, Valiga produced the JVA. Waddell testified he thought his corporation existed when he contracted with Valiga but admitted he partnered with Graves and the two split the $11,500 contractor’s fee Valiga paid. Graves countered his only role was sharing in the profits, but he had worked on the house six to eight hours a day during most of the construction. The trial court concluded Waddell and Graves were joint venturers in a partnership and entered judgment for Valiga for $80,046 against them both personally. Waddell and Graves appealed, arguing they could not be personally liable because Valiga had contracted only with R.H. Waddell Construction, Inc.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Swiney, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership