Title: Housing Vermont v. Goldsmith

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Housing Vermont v. Goldsmith & Morris  (95-292); 165 Vt 428; 685 A.2d 1086

[Opinion Filed 23-Aug-1996]


       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. 95-292


Housing Vermont                                   Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Chittenden Superior Court

Goldsmith & Morris                                April Term, 1996


Linda Levitt, J.

       Neil H. Mickenberg of Mickenberg, Dunn, Sirotkin & Dorsch, Burlington,
  for plaintiff-appellee

       Michael B. Clapp of Dinse, Erdmann & Clapp, Burlington, for
  defendant-appellant


PRESENT:       Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., Norton, Super. J. and
               Teachout, Super. J. Specially Assigned


       MORSE, J.   Defendant Goldsmith and Morris Architects (Goldsmith)
  appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Housing Vermont in an
  architectural malpractice action. Goldsmith claims that the court erred in
  construing the contract between the parties and in imposing discovery
  sanctions.  We affirm for the most part, but reverse the award of discovery
  sanctions.

       Housing Vermont, a non-profit corporation that develops affordable
  housing, is the assignee of claims originally brought by the Riverside
  Housing Partnership.  Riverside owns the Salmon Run housing project, the
  development at issue.  The Salmon Run Project was initiated by the Davis
  Company in the summer of 1987.  Davis Company secured the resources the
  project required, including architectural and engineering services,
  building permits, financing, and an option on the site.  It sold the
  project to Riverside in November of 1988.  As a component of the sale, the
  Davis Company assigned its rights under all contracts related to the

 

  project to Riverside, including rights to the architectural design services
  of defendant Goldsmith and Morris Architects, and  to the services of Krebs
  and Lansing, a civil engineering firm.

       Located in a ravine, the Salmon Run site was very steep and
  technically difficult to develop.  At the crux of this case is the question
  of responsibility for producing the final grading plan for the space
  immediately surrounding the buildings, an area known as the courtyard.
  Goldsmith contends that Krebs and Lansing was responsible for the final
  grading plan while Housing Vermont claims that the plan was Goldsmith's
  responsibility.

       Goldsmith produced a site plan, "SP-1", which contained grading
  information and was, in fact, used to construct the grades in the
  courtyard.  The steep slopes depicted in SP-1 proved to be unstable and had
  to be redesigned and stabilized at substantial additional cost.  At trial,
  the court found that Goldsmith was responsible for producing the final
  grading plan, and concluded that SP-1 did not meet the standard of care
  required of architects in producing final grading plans.  The court awarded
  Housing Vermont judgment in the amount of $100,469.92 plus prejudgment
  interest and costs.  Upon Housing Vermont's motion, the court also imposed
  discovery sanctions in the amount of $14,446 for Goldsmith's failure to
  admit certain matters of proof.

                                     I.


       Goldsmith's primary claim is that the trial court erred in finding
  that it was responsible for producing the final grading plan for the
  courtyard area.  The agreement between Goldsmith and Riverside was
  initially formalized in a letter and an American Institute of Architects
  (AIA) document called a "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and
  Architect."  These documents obligated Goldsmith to produce a site plan for
  construction.  Subsequently the agreement was modified to provide Goldsmith
  with extra compensation for "grading plans to date."  Goldsmith claims that
  nothing on the face of these documents obligated it to create a final
  grading plan and that the court must have erroneously relied on parol
  evidence to support its finding that Goldsmith was responsible for the
  plan.  Goldsmith contends as well that construction of contract terms is a
  question of law, and claims that we must analyze the contract without
  giving any deference to the trial court's interpretation.

 

       We note first that the parol evidence argument was not made before the
  trial court. Indeed, the record reveals that Goldsmith's own examination of
  witnesses elicited some of the evidence in question, and that Goldsmith did
  not object to its admission at trial.  Thus  this claim is waived.  See
  Morais v. Yee, 162 Vt.  366, 372,