Case Title: Wyatt v. Palmer

Citation: 165 Vt 600, 683 A.2d 1353

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-08-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Wyatt v. Palmer  (94-608); 165 Vt 600; 683 A.2d 1353

[Opinion Filed 11-Aug-1996]

                          ENTRY ORDER

                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-608

                        OCTOBER TERM, 1995


Stephen Wyatt and               }          APPEALED FROM:
Donna Wyatt                     }
                                }
     v.                         }          Chittenden Superior Court
                                }
Warren Palmer and               }
Courtney Palmer                 }          DOCKET NO. S2029-91CnC


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Defendants Warren and Courtney Palmer appeal a judgment in favor of
  plaintiffs Stephen and Donna Wyatt in a breach of contract action that
  arose out of a sale of real property.    We affirm in part and reverse in
  part.

       Defendants own Palmer Real Estate Development.  They construct new
  homes for resale on properties that they buy and subdivide.  In July 1990
  the Wyatts agreed to buy a new home from the Palmers on lot 39 of the
  Foothills Development, and the parties executed a purchase and sale
  agreement to that effect.  The purchase and sale agreement included a
  default clause which read, in part, "In the event legal action is
  instituted arising out of a breach of this contract, the prevailing party
  shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs."

       In August 1990, when the house was substantially complete, the Palmers
  delivered a warranty deed conveying the house and lot 39 to the Wyatts, and
  promising to warrant and defend title against all lawful claims.  About a
  year later, the Langes, owners of adjacent lot 38, notified the Wyatts of a
  possible boundary encroachment.  A surveyor hired by the Langes had
  discovered that the boundary between the properties ran through the Wyatts'
  driveway and garage.

       Before constructing the Wyatts' house, Warren Palmer had discussed the
  location of the boundary with the Langes' predecessor in title.  Although
  Mr. Palmer expressed some doubt about the location of the boundary, he did
  not commission a survey to locate it accurately. Instead, he and the
  Langes' predecessor agreed that the line ran just beyond a row of trees,
  some forty feet from the subsequent location of the Wyatts' garage.  Mr.
  Palmer pointed to this same

 

  line when he described the boundaries of lot 39 to the Wyatts, indicating
  that the trees fell within the lot.

       In September 1991, the Wyatts' counsel notified the Palmers' counsel
  that the Wyatts expected the Palmers to indemnify them for expenses
  incurred in resolving any dispute with the Langes.  This notice was
  repeated in October 1991 and January 1992.

       In November 1991, the Langes instituted an action seeking to eject the
  Wyatts and to obtain damages from the Palmers.  In answer to the complaint,
  the Palmers denied building plaintiffs' home on the Langes' property.  They
  did not answer on behalf of the Wyatts or take any action to defend their
  title.

       Before this action was filed, Mr. Palmer had disputed the results of
  the Langes' survey. He claimed he had engaged a surveyor to locate the
  boundary.  In response, the Langes commissioned another survey, which
  confirmed the results of the prior one.  When, as of March 1992, Palmer had
  not produced any survey results, the Wyatts wrote to his counsel saying
  that they would be forced to hire a surveyor if he did not.

       In July 1992, the Wyatts' counsel wrote to the Palmers' counsel
  stating that, because they had produced no survey results to rebut the
  Langes' claim, the Palmers could not justifiably refuse to pay for the
  Wyatts' defense.  Subsequently, the Wyatts filed a cross-claim against the
  Palmers.

       In January 1994, the Palmers paid the Langes $3000 to settle their
  claim with the Wyatts. As part of the settlement, the Langes attempted to
  convey a parcel that extended from the actual boundary of lot 39 to the
  boundary line that Mr. Palmer had shown to the Wyatts.  The Wyatts elected
  to accept only enough of the parcel to resolve the encroachment issue,
  because accepting the entire parcel would have entailed granting the Langes
  a septic easement.  Furthermore, the unaccepted portion of the parcel would
  have been of little use to the Wyatts, because the presence of the easement
  foreclosed the possibility of expanding their home or otherwise developing
  that area.  Thus, after the settlement, lot 39 was .09 acres smaller than
  Mr. Palmer had initially described it to be.

       After settling with the Langes, the Wyatts pursued their cross claim
  against the Palmers. A special master was appointed to assist the court.
  The master recommended judgment for the Wyatts and an award of attorney's
  fees, costs and damages totaling $23,801.13 plus interest. The trial court
  adopted the master's findings and conclusions.  This appeal followed.

       On appeal, the Palmers argue that they adequately defended the Wyatts'
  title, and that they should be relieved of the obligation to indemnify the
  Wyatts for litigation expenses because the Wyatts filed a crossclaim
  against them.  The Palmers also argue that the court erred in finding them
  liable under several theories and in awarding the Wyatts damages for land
  not received, litigation expenses incurred in their cross-claim against the
  Palmers, lost opportunity to refinance a home mortgage, and interest on a
  line of credit used to finance litigation.   The Wyatts cross-

 

  appeal, contending that the court erred in concluding that defendants were
  not liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, and in denying punitive
  damages.

                                I.

       The findings of a special master, once adopted by the court, "have the
  same force and effect as findings of the court."  Darling v. Ennis, 138 Vt.
  311, 314,