Chiaramonte Construction & Plumbing v. Gutierrez CA5

Filed 5/25/23 Chiaramonte Construction & Plumbing v. Gutierrez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CHIARAMONTE CONSTRUCTION & PLUMBING, INC., F083765

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Tulare Super. Ct. No. PCU274273)

v. OPINION GREGGORY JOE GUTIERREZ et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary M. Johnson, Judge. Greggory Joe Gutierrez and Maria Gutierrez, in pro. per., for Defendants and Appellants. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Defendants appeal a judgment entered in favor of a corporate plaintiff that was, apparently, a suspended corporation at the time judgment was entered. We conclude defendants’ failures to (1) provide any proper citations to the appellate record, (2) establish that they preserved this issue below, and (3) to provide an adequate record, require affirmance of the judgment. FACTS Plaintiff Chiaramonte Construction & Plumbing, Inc. (Plaintiff) sued several individuals including appellants and defendants Greggory Joe Gutierrez (Gutierrez) and Maria Gutierrez. Plaintiff asserted that he entered into a contract to rebuild defendants’ home that reportedly sustained major fire damage.1 At a court trial, plaintiff produced a contract purportedly signed by Gutierrez. Gutierrez testified he reviewed the contract, agreed to its terms, and met to sign the contract but did not actually sign it because he did not have a working pen. The court inferred that plaintiff’s agent later filled in Gutierrez’s signature. Nonetheless, plaintiff began the work contemplated by the contract with Gutierrez’s knowledge. Consequently, the court found the document was a “binding contract” between plaintiff and defendants. However, the contract did not define the scope of work adequately. As a result, the court found plaintiff was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the actual work performed. The judgment dated November 8, 2021, ultimately provided that plaintiff was to recover $201,576.91 from defendants, among other provisions.2 Defendants Greggory Gutierrez and Maria Gutierrez appeal.