Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractappealtrialtestimonywillimplied contract
contracttrialtestimonywillimplied contract

Related Cases

Koll Real Estate Group, Inc. v. Smilie, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2003 WL 22966351
View Case »
In re Estate of Kissinger, 166 Wash.2d 120, 206 P.3d 665
View Case »
Garner v. Robart, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2011 WL 1138702, 2011 -Ohio- 1519
View Case »
Karsenty v. Schoukroun, 406 Md. 469, 959 A.2d 1147
View Case »
In re Livingston’s Will, 5 N.J. 65, 73 A.2d 916
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Castleton’s Estate v. Schlicht, 504 P.2d 1103

Facts

C. R. Schlicht and Lorraine Schlicht, the resident managers of the Foothill Apartments, filed claims against the estate of Gladys M. Castleton for services they allegedly rendered from December 1966 to April 1971. The Castletons, an elderly couple, had moved into the apartments, where they became friends with the Schlichts. The Schlichts claimed to have provided various forms of assistance, including transportation and companionship, but the Castletons paid for their own expenses and had not requested the Schlichts' services.

Issue

Did the claimants have an implied contract with the decedent for the rendering of services, and was the trial court correct in dismissing their claims?

Did the claimants have an implied contract with the decedent for the rendering of services, and was the trial court correct in dismissing their claims?

Rule

An appellate court will not disturb a judgment made by a trier of fact as long as the judgment is based on competent evidence in the record.

The rule is well documented in Colorado cases that an appellate court will not disturb a judgment made by a trier of fact so long as the judgment is based on competent evidence in the record.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented by the claimants and found that while some services were performed, there was conflicting testimony regarding the nature and extent of those services. The claimants' assertions of a 24-hour care arrangement were contradicted by Mr. Castleton's testimony, and the court determined that the evidence did not support the existence of an implied contract.

The record does not support claimants' contention. Though there was evidence that services were performed, the claimants themselves presented conflicting testimony on many issues. The Schlichts claimed that they looked after the Castletons on a 24-hour basis. They claimed to have devoted approximately five hours a day to the care of the Castletons, leaving about three to four hours a day for the apartment management duties. They further claimed that the Castletons requested this daily attention. Mr. Castleton, called as an adverse witness, denied that such requests were made.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claims, concluding that the evidence did not support the claimants' assertion of an implied contract for services rendered.

Judgment affirmed.

Who won?

The estate of Gladys M. Castleton prevailed because the court found that the claimants did not establish an implied contract for the services they claimed to have provided.

You must be