Dawn Cate & a. v. Linda Hemingway & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0508, Dawn Cate & a. v. Linda Hemingway
& a., the court on July 2, 2020, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.

The defendants, Linda Hemingway and Russell Hemingway, appeal the
order of the Superior Court (McNamara, J.), following a three-day bench trial,
finding that they breached their lease with the plaintiffs, Dawn Cate and Earle
Cate, and awarding damages. The defendants argue that the evidence was
insufficient to prove breach of contract and damages, and that the plaintiffs
failed to mitigate their damages.

A lease is a contract. Gibson v. LaClair, 135 N.H. 129, 133 (1991).
“A breach of contract occurs when there is a failure without legal excuse to
perform any promise which forms the whole or part of a contract.” Lassonde v.
Stanton, 157 N.H. 582, 588 (2008) (quotation and brackets omitted). “A trial
court’s findings of fact in a breach of contract action are binding upon us
unless they are unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.”
Id.

In August 2013, the plaintiffs leased one-quarter of an acre of the
defendants’ property, together with “water rights,” to allow the plaintiffs to grow
crops in and around the greenhouses in the leased area. The record shows
that access to well water was by a spigot on the defendants’ house. The
defendants allowed the plaintiffs to use the spigot until the start of 2014, when
the relationship between the parties deteriorated. Plaintiff Earle Cate testified
that, during a heated argument with Linda Hemingway, she told him that he
could no longer use the spigot. The defendants argue that there was no
evidence that the plaintiffs’ water rights referred specifically to well water.
However, the trial court accepted the plaintiffs’ testimony that other water
sources on the property were either inadequate or impractical to water their
crops. The record supports the court’s finding. See Lassonde, 157 N.H. at
588.

The defendants argue that even if the plaintiffs’ water rights referred
specifically to well water, there was no testimony that the plaintiffs attempted
to access the spigot after the argument but were blocked by a locking
mechanism or some other means. Earle Cate testified that it was clear to him
that the defendants were denying the plaintiffs access to the spigot. We
conclude that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendants denied
the plaintiffs access to the well water. See id.

The defendants next argue that the evidence was insufficient to support
the plaintiffs’ damage claim. “The goal of damages in actions for breach of
contract is to put the non-breaching party in the same position it would have
been in if the contract had been fully performed.” George v. Al Hoyt & Sons,
Inc., 162 N.H. 123, 134 (2011). The plaintiffs produced an expert, a certified
crop insurance adjuster, who concluded that if the plaintiffs had been able to
grow flowers and vegetables in the leased area, they would have earned
$17,127 in sales and avoided $1,546 in expenses, resulting in actual damages
of $18,673. The trial court noted that the defendants “did not effectively
challenge this evidence,” and credited the expert’s testimony. We conclude that
the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s damage award. See id.

Finally, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their
damages by seeking other water sources. “[A] party seeking damages
occasioned by the fault of another must take all reasonable steps to lessen his
or her resultant loss.” Grenier v. Barclay Square Commercial Condo. Owners’
Assoc., 150 N.H. 111, 119 (2003). The defendants bear the burden of proving
that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages. Id. The trial court accepted the
plaintiffs’ testimony that other water sources were either infeasible or
impractical. The record supports the trial court’s finding that the defendants
did not meet their burden to show that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages.
See id.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2