Title: Hunter Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Burlington

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

HUNTER_BROADCASTNG_V_CITY_OF_BURLNGTON.94-498; 164 Vt 391; 670 A.2d 836

[Filed 01-Dec-1995]

       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. 94-498


Hunter Broadcasting, Inc.                         Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
       v.                                         Chittenden Superior Court

City of Burlington                                March Term, 1995


Matthew I. Katz, J.

       William F. Ellis of McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan, Burlington, for
  plaintiff-appellee

       Paul D. Jarvis and Richard R. Goldsborough of Jarvis and Kaplan,
  Burlington, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J.,(FN1) Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       GIBSON, J.   Defendant City of Burlington appeals from a grant of a
  directed verdict to plaintiff Hunter Broadcasting, Inc. on the issue of the
  City's liability for breach of a covenant against encumbrances under a
  warranty deed.  The City also appeals the trial court's jury instructions
  regarding consequential damages for a breach of covenant.  We affirm.

       In 1982, the City and Hunter entered into a "land swap" agreement
  under which Hunter deeded 3.23 acres of land to the City and the City
  leased 9.7 acres of a 400-acre parcel to Hunter with an option to buy.  In
  1987, the City conveyed the 9.7 acres to Hunter by warranty deed, in which
  the City covenanted that the property was free of encumbrances.

       In 1989, Hunter agreed to sell its assets, including the 9.7-acre lot,
  to Atlantic Ventures of Vermont, L.P.  Atlantic's title search revealed,
  however, that the 9.7 acres lacked both local and state subdivision
  approval, and that the property was then subject to several liens.  In
  August 1989, the City applied for and obtained local subdivision approval
  for the parcel, but neither the

 

  City nor Hunter took action to obtain state subdivision approval.  On
  October 3, 1989, having expressed concern over Hunter's lack of progress on
  the lien and subdivision problems, Atlantic terminated its asset-purchase
  agreement with Hunter.  On October 4, 1989, Hunter applied for a deferral
  of state subdivision permit, which the Department of Environmental
  Conservation issued on October 16, 1989.  Hunter subsequently sold the
  9.7-acre property to another company for substantially less money, and also
  incurred significant expenses to close the sale.

       Hunter brought action against the City for breach of the covenants of
  title.  Hunter's claims were tried to a jury on May 19-20, 1994.  At the
  close of evidence, both Hunter and the City moved for directed verdicts on
  the issue of the City's liability for breach of the covenant against
  encumbrances.  The trial court denied the City's motion and granted
  Hunter's motion on the ground that the City's failure to obtain a
  subdivision permit constituted a breach of the City's covenant against
  encumbrances as a matter of law.  The court reserved only the issue of
  damages for presentation to the jury, and instructed the jury that Hunter
  could recover direct damages as well as damages for injuries sustained "in
  consequence of the breach of the convenant."  The jury awarded $112,000 to
  Hunter, which the court later reduced to $98,500 to reflect a setoff for a
  settlement in a related proceeding.

       An appeal from a grant of a directed verdict tests whether the result
  is sound in law on the evidence produced.  Foote v. Simmonds Precision
  Prods. Co., 158 Vt. 566, 569-570, 613 A.2d 1277, 1279 (1992).  In reviewing
  a trial court's grant of a directed verdict, we view the evidence in the
  light most favorable to the nonmoving party and exclude all modifying
  evidence. Coll v. Johnson, 161 Vt. 163, 164,