Abregu v. Gonzalez - Oral Contract Dispute Over Home Improvement Services

Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Maria J. Abregu v. Yanira Gonzalez

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: 2024-0363-Appeal.

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Supreme Court

No. 2024-363-Appeal.
(WD 24-222)

Maria J. Abregu :

v. :

Yanira Gonzalez. :

ORDER

The plaintiff, Maria J. Abregu, appeals from a Superior Court judgment

entered in favor of the defendant, Yanira Gonzalez, following a bench trial. This

case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to

appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily

decided. After considering the parties’ written submissions and reviewing the

record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this case may be decided

without further briefing or argument.1 For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the

judgment of the Superior Court.

1
At 2:31 p.m. on the day before this case was scheduled for oral argument, plaintiff
filed a motion asking the Court to reschedule the matter because “[her] address
changed, and [she] just received [her] forwarded mail * * *.” We denied the motion.
We remind litigants that it is their responsibility to apprise the clerk’s office of their
current address at all times. On the following day, defendant appeared in court;
plaintiff did not. As defendant represented that she had driven from Virginia and
had not received notice of plaintiff’s motion until late in the day, we allowed her to
address the Court.

-1-
This case stems from a dispute surrounding home improvements to plaintiff’s

property at 23 Winterberry Road in Narragansett (the property) after it suffered water

damage. The plaintiff alleges that she entered into an oral contract with defendant,

who owns a contracting business called Master Kitchens Center, at some point

during the summer of 2023. Both parties agree that the oral contract called for the

installation of kitchen countertops for the property, and there is no dispute regarding

the satisfactory quality of that work.

However, plaintiff claims that the contract required defendant to perform

other work that, in her view, was either completed unsatisfactorily or left unfinished.

The alleged additional work included portions of the outside deck that had

protruding screws, an outdoor shower that was not properly winterized, concrete

steps that were installed in violation of the Rhode Island State Building and Fire

Code Regulations, and several other electrical and plumbing issues. The plaintiff

further submits that she gave defendant several opportunities to remediate those

issues; but, because defendant failed to do so, she had to “hire out” others to

complete the work. She seeks $3,000 in damages.

The defendant disputes plaintiff’s claims. She asserts that she only agreed to

install the countertops. When she arrived at the property to do so, she noticed that

there were several issues with the home, namely that it “was just gutted” because,

although the house had appliances, it was missing flooring and “[t]he electrical was

-2-
missing.” According to defendant, plaintiff informed her that she had a budget of

$8,000, which was not enough for defendant to perform the work; however, she

suggested that her brother might do the work within that price range. The defendant

testified at trial that her only involvement in the agreement between her brother and

plaintiff was to act as a facilitator for the payment of her brother’s services. Other

than that, defendant would assist plaintiff and her brother by sourcing and delivering

materials to the property, at plaintiff’s request, “because [plaintiff] was going

through a tough time.” The plaintiff does not dispute that defendant’s brother was

the person who performed the work; rather, she characterizes defendant’s brother as

defendant’s employee.

On March 4, 2024, plaintiff filed an action against defendant in District Court

seeking to recover $3,000 in damages plus court fees. A trial was held on April 29,

2024, and the matter was ultimately dismissed by the court that same day. The

plaintiff appealed the decision of the District Court to the Superior Court, also on

April 29, 2024.

On August 2, 2024, a justice of the Superior Court held a nonjury trial, hearing

plaintiff’s claim de novo. The plaintiff and defendant each represented themselves

at the trial, and the only evidence offered appears to have been their testimony.2

2
From the trial transcript it appears that plaintiff offered pictures of her home for
identification. She also attempted to admit certain text messages allegedly showing
that defendant’s brother was an employee, but it is not clear from the record if these

-3-
After hearing the evidence, the trial justice rendered a decision from the bench in

which she found “more credible the testimony of the defendant in that she was

retained for the sole purpose of installing * * * the countertops.” She then ruled in

favor of defendant, after which plaintiff filed a premature but valid notice of appeal.

The matter was later remanded for entry of final judgment in accordance with Rule

58 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, and judgment entered on March

25, 2025.

“A judgment in a nonjury case will be reversed on appeal when it can be

shown that the trial justice misapplied the law, misconceived or overlooked material

evidence or made factual findings that were clearly wrong.” Cathay Cathay, Inc. v.

Vindalu, LLC, 962 A.2d 740, 745 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Town of West Greenwich v.

A. Cardi Realty Associates, 786 A.2d 354, 357-58 (R.I. 2001)). “Otherwise, we are

deferential to the trial justice’s findings of fact and give them great weight.” Id.

“Furthermore, this Court ‘gives great deference to the trial justice’s determinations

of credibility because it was the trial justice who had the opportunity to observe the

messages were accepted as a full exhibit or for identification, or if they were even
shown to the trial justice. Further, defendant offered a check in the amount of
$2,490—payment for installing the countertops—into evidence, which was received
as a full exhibit. However, the court clerk characterized the exhibits as being offered
only for identification and returned them to the parties. The exhibits page of the
transcript does indicate that the photographs were accepted for identification and the
check as a full exhibit. Nevertheless, this Court is unable to review any of those
items as they did not become part of the record.

-4-
witnesses’ live testimony and the witnesses’ demeanor.’” Sepulveda as Trustee of 7

Half Mile Road Living Trust v. Buffum, 334 A.3d 98, 103 (R.I. 2025) (brackets and

deletion omitted) (quoting Anton v. Houze, 277 A.3d 695, 705 (R.I. 2022)).

On appeal, plaintiff appears to argue that the trial justice either misconceived

the evidence or that her findings were clearly wrong. The plaintiff claims that she

“had the evidence during trial that [her] contract was with [defendant], that [she]

paid [defendant] in full, that the contractual relationship was never with the brother,

and that the work in question was done by [defendant] and her employee

([defendant’s] brother)” and that defendant “lied under oath.” She requests that we

“review the evidence” and hold that defendant breached the contract. The defendant

disputes those claims and asks this Court to uphold the trial justice’s decision.

After hearing and carefully considering the testimony of the parties, the trial

justice determined that defendant was “more credible” and “that [defendant] was

retained for the sole purpose of installing * * * the countertops.” The trial justice is

owed deference in that conclusion. See Turacova v. DeThomas, 45 A.3d 509, 517

(R.I. 2012) (“Whether a party has breached a contract is a question of fact.”). The

only evidence presented to the trial justice was the oral testimony of the parties;

therefore, her determination that defendant was more credible than plaintiff was

paramount in coming to her ultimate decision in the case. Because she was in the

courtroom listening to the testimony and observing the demeanor of the parties, she

-5-
was in the best position to make such credibility determinations. See Sepulveda, 334

A.3d at 103; see also State v. Lopez, 129 A.3d 77, 84 (R.I. 2016) (“[A] trial justice,

being present during all phases of the trial, is in an especially good position to

evaluate the facts and to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”) (quoting State v.

Gonzalez, 56 A.3d 96, 103 (R.I. 2012)). After reviewing the evidence in the record,

we cannot say that the trial justice misconceived the evidence or that her factual

findings were clearly wrong.

Accordingly, we hold that the trial justice did not err in rendering judgment in

favor of the defendant. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Superior

Court is affirmed. The record may be returned to the Superior Court.

Entered as an Order of this Court this day of April, 2026.

By Order,

---

Clerk

Justice Goldberg participated in the decision but retired prior to its

publication.

-6-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Maria J. Abregu v. Yanira Gonzalez.

No. 2024-363-Appeal.
Case Number
(WD 24-222)

Date Order Filed April 13, 2026

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter

For Plaintiff:

Maria Abregu, pro se
Attorney(s) on Appeal
For Defendant:

Yanira Gonzalez, pro se

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)