Case Title: Estate of Fleming v. Nicholson

Citation: 168 Vt. 495, 724 A.2d 1026

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Estate of Fleming v. Nicholson  (97-360); 168 Vt. 495; 724 A.2d 1026

[Filed 11-Dec-1998]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 97-360

Estate of Edward Fleming                        Supreme Court

                                                On Appeal from
     v.                                         Chittenden Superior Court

David Nicholson, et al.                         June Term, 1998

Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

       Grant C. Rees of Lobe & Rees, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Douglas C. Pearson, William H. Quinn, Thomas H. Higgins and James
  Preston of Person, Wadhams, Quinn & Yates, Burlington, for
  Defendants-Appellants.

       Robert M. Paolini, Montpelier, for Amicus Curiae Vermont Bar
  Association

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.  Defendants, David Nicholson and the law firm of Nicholson
  & Taylor, P.C., appeal an order of the superior court granting partial
  summary judgment to plaintiff, estate of Edward Fleming, and an order
  awarding plaintiff prejudgment interest on damages.  In granting summary
  judgment to plaintiff, the court found defendants negligent as a matter of
  law for failing to disclose a lack of a subdivision permit discovered while
  performing a title search on property plaintiff contemplated purchasing. 
  After an evidentiary hearing was held regarding the computation of damages,
  the court calculated and awarded damages to plaintiff in the amount of
  $55,766.00 and prejudgment interest in the amount of $59,695.60. 
  Defendants now argue that the trial court erred in granting summary
  judgment to plaintiff because there was no expert testimony presented
  concerning the standard of care for attorneys in Vermont and because
  defendant Nicholson was reasonable in not disclosing the defect in title. 
  In addition, defendants argue that the court should not have granted
  prejudgment interest because the plaintiff's damages

 

  were not readily ascertainable.  We affirm the grant of summary judgment
  and the award of prejudgment interest.

       In 1988, Edward Fleming retained the law firm of Nicholson & Taylor,
  P.C., to conduct a title search on a parcel of land he was considering
  purchasing.  While performing the search, defendant Nicholson discovered
  that the parcel was carved out of a larger piece of land in 1976 with the
  aid of a deferral of subdivision permit issued by the Department of
  Environmental Conservation (DEC).  Defendant also discovered that in the
  late 1970's, a dwelling and wastewater system were constructed on the
  property without a subdivision permit and in violation of the deferral of
  permit.  At the time of the title search, the DEC followed a 1984 non-
  enforcement policy with regard to subdivision violations.  Relying on this
  non-enforcement policy, defendant decided not to inform Fleming of the
  subdivision violation.  Fleming, believing there were no title defects,
  purchased the property for $66,500.00.  Unbeknownst to Fleming, the DEC
  rescinded the non-enforcement policy in 1989.  In 1991, Fleming refinanced
  his mortgage on the property and died a year later.  In 1994, Fleming's
  estate contracted to sell the property for $94,000.00, but the discovery of
  the subdivision violation terminated the contract.  Fleming's mortgagee
  subsequently foreclosed on the property and sold the property at a
  decreased value of $10,734.00 in 1995.

       The administrator of Fleming's estate, Grant C. Rees, then brought a
  legal malpractice action against Nicholson & Taylor, P.C., and against
  David Nicholson, Esq. and Todd Taylor, Esq. individually.  Plaintiff
  claimed that defendants committed malpractice by failing to inform Fleming
  that the property was subject to a deferral of permit, that the dwelling
  and septic system were constructed in violation of this deferral, and that
  the property lacked a subdivision permit.  Plaintiff moved for summary
  judgment on the issue of defendants' liability, and defendant Taylor filed
  a cross-motion for summary judgment.  The court granted Taylor's motion,
  and plaintiff has not appealed the decision in favor of Taylor.  The court
  granted summary judgment on the issue of liability against defendants
  Nicholson and Nicholson and Taylor, P.C., holding

 

  defendant Nicholson negligent as a matter of law for failing to inform his
  client of the permit deferral and lack of a subdivision permit for the
  dwelling and wastewater system.(FN1)  An evidentiary hearing was held
  regarding the computation of damages (plaintiff waived trial by jury), and
  the court awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $55,766.00 plus
  $59,695.60 in prejudgment interest.

                                     I.

       Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of
  material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
  law. See Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc., 165 Vt. 306, 309,