Opinion ID: 1767590
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Essex breach the Guarantee by failing to complete the improvements in the required timeframe?

Text: Essex argues there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that Essex failed to complete its construction and improvements in accordance with the subdivision regulations. The subject matter in dispute here is highly technical and was addressed almost exclusively through expert testimony. The trial court heard testimony from Essex's experts, Daniel Barnes of Brucker Earth Engineering & Testing (Brucker Engineering), and Brian Oliver, an Essex employee. The trial court heard extensive testimony regarding tests conducted on the streets and observations made during the streets' construction. The trial court also heard testimony from Randolph Boling, the owner of Boling; William Koehrer, the director of public works for the county; and Barczykowski. The trial court received evidence of the improvident decision not to retest the subgrade after the concrete trucks had traversed it and of the deficiencies in the thickness of many of the tested slabs. An appellate court is not in the position of second-guessing a trial court's evaluation and weighing of evidence. In a case so fact-based and in which witness testimony is so crucial, it is particularly important that the appellate court exercise proper deference to the trial court's judgment. The role of the appellate court is not to reevaluate expert testimony through its own lens but rather to confine itself to determining whether substantial evidence existed to support the trial court's judgment. Here, the issue was not an evaluation of causationwhether the thinness of the street slabs caused the concrete failures but instead was whether Essex conformed to the requirements of the Guarantee by creating streets free from premature failures that passed the county's inspection prior to the full release of the bond. In the Guarantee, Essex guaranteed that all required improvements would be installed, constructed and completed within one (1) year from the date of approval of the Guarantee agreement, which was approved July 26, 2000. Essex had until July 26, 2001, to complete all the improvements, seek an inspection from the county, and obtain an approval and release from the county commission. Essex did not meet those requirements. The streets were cracked, their thickness did not conform to required levels and they did not pass the county's inspection. It was Essex, and not its subcontractors, that was obligated to complete improvements under the term of the Guarantee. The trial court's finding that Essex breached the Guarantee by failing to complete the subdivision streets pursuant to the subdivision regulations is supported by substantial evidence.