Facts

Stein Sandvik was approached by Loretta Bozung, a real estate "flipper" to work as the on-site construction consultant on the remodel of a home on Jackson St., which she intended to be her residence. She also intended Sandvik to work on other projects she developed.

Sandvik claimed that Bozung owed him unpaid wages and sums advanced for Bozung's benefit. Sandvik claimed that he and Bozung signed a written employment agreement on June 4, 2007, in which he would be paid $75 per hour, payable every two weeks for the Jackson St. property remodel. He claimed that two days later Bozung executed an "owner-builder" declaration in which she represented that she would perform all the work on the remodel or have it done by employees with wages as their sole compensation. The two allegedly agreed to modified terms of the agreement, whereby Sandvik would be paid 40 hours per week for each week he worked, regardless of the actual number of hours he worked on the project.

Sandvik claimed that he submitted accounting statements to Bozung from time to time and he would be paid a lump sum intended as wages and reimbursement for monies advanced in buying materials and paying for the services of other contractors retained on Bozung's behalf. Bozung fell behind on payments, but Sandvik continued to work for her based on her promise that he would be repaid when she refinanced the Jackson property.

Bozung refinanced the Jackson property sometime in 2008, and shortly thereafter, she approached Sandvik with a new assignment. She allegedly promised to repay Sandvik all that he was owed plus 50 percent of the anticipated profits on the sale of the new property located at 298 Upper Terrace. She persuaded Sandvik to loan her $60,000 to complete the purchase of the new property, which Bozung allegedly characterized as Sandvik's contribution to a partnership. Sandvik claimed that he provided 380 hours of labor, and an estimated 100 hours of overtime labor. He contended he was owed an additional $28,500 for his straight time work and $11,250 for overtime work plus an additional $69,729 for sums advanced for third-party labor and materials used for the remodel.

In 2009, Bozung sold the Upper Terrace property and received more than $272,000 in cash proceeds. Thereafter, Bozung refused to pay Sandvik any portion of what he was owed or costs he advanced in both projects.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Sandvik sued Bozung for breach of written employment contract, breach of oral contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, conversion, and for various violations of the Labor Code.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Bozung filed a cross-complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of oral partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty and accounting, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligence per se, and violation of the contractor licensing requirements of California's Business and Professions Code.

Damages

Sandvik sought recovery in the amount of $156,617.80 for his labor, costs advanced, and penalties on the Jackson project. The amount consisted of $87,142.81 for labor and costs advanced, $50,625 for unpaid overtime, and $18,350 for Labor Code penalties. Sandvik also sought $174,255.81 for his loan, labor, and costs advanced on the most recent project. The amount consisted of $66,578 for loans, $28,500 for labor, $16,031.25 for unpaid overtime. The parties agreed that there was no profit on the sale of this property.

Result

The jury found Sandvik was Bozung's employee on the Jackson project, and a minority partner of approximately 7.5 percent on the Upper Terrace project. The jury found against Bozung on all of her claims. Sandvik was awarded $53,000 in unpaid wages - $35,000 for reimbursement, $350 for failure to furnish wage agreements and $18,000 in penalties for the Jackson property. The jury found that he worked overtime but denied the claim because he was an exempt employee. Since the jury found Sandvik to be a minority partner on the Upper Terrace project, he was not entitled to recover for his labor. Further, the jury found that he was only responsible for roughly 7.5 percent of the losses and was entitled to recover $120,000 of the $129,724.06 that he had advanced for the benefit of the "partnership." Sandvik was awarded a total of $226,350 plus interest.

Deliberation

one day

Poll

12-0 (against Bozung on claims of fraud in the inducement and breach of the oral partnership agreement)