Opinion ID: 1767590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Cost of Street Repairs

Text: Essex argues the trial court erred in awarding Intervener's costs in the amount of $35,875.00 because the costs awarded were actually paid by the Subdivision Trustees, not the intervenors, and went for maintenance, rather than to improve the streets as required of Essex by the Guarantee. As to the maintenance argument, the trial court reviewed documentation submitted by the intervenors of various costs. The trial court determined that some of the costs did constitute pure maintenance, not within the meaning of the Guarantee. The trial court determined that only $35,875.00 of the total costs the intervenors presented to the court constituted improvement costs caused by Essex's failures to meet the requirements of the Guarantee. Because this Court defers to a trial court's evaluation of fact, pursuant to Murphy v. Carron , this Court rejects Essex's argument that the $35,875.00 award only covers routine maintenance. The bulk of Essex's argument is that the intervenors, who appeared on behalf of an unincorporated homeowners' association, were not the parties who actually expended money on the costs of repairs. Essex argues that the developer trustees were responsible for the repairs, rather than the intervenors. The distinction between the development trustees and the intervenors is semantic only. The evidence at trial showed that when the developer trustees resigned in 2003, the newly elected resident trustees voted to assume the assets and liabilities of the action committee, including the present lawsuit. The evidence also showed that the developer trustees referred to themselves as the Winter Valley Homeowners Association, on behalf of which the intervenors appear. The money for the cost of repairs came from one placea fund to which lot owners contributed. When the developer trustees were in control before resigning, that fund was in their control. When the homeowners' association took control, the fund fell to the association to maintain. The intervenors appear on behalf of the homeowners' association. The trial court correctly found that the developer trustees and the intervenors were representing the same class of people. The trial court's judgment awarding repair costs to the intervenors is affirmed.