Opinion ID: 2319344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Trial Court's Rejection of Mr. Thoren's Certification

Text: We see no reason to disturb the trial court's finding that [t]he record unequivocally establishes that Unit 800 was not Substantially Complete when Mr. Thoren inspected it on January 31, 2007, and that he was unreasonable in stating it was. As the court noted, at the time of his certification Mr. Thoren was an unlicensed architect who had no professional experience building out dental offices. Moreover, while Mr. Thoren concluded that the Unit was Substantially Complete in his inspection evaluation, the court recognized that his testimony at trial was considerably more equivocal. In his inspection evaluation, Mr. Thoren stated that the Unit was substantially complete because it could be used for its intended purpose. However, he testified that the Unit was substantially complete because it  was ready for fitting out as offices, particularly when you look at what was the responsibility for the various parties.  Consistent with applicable legal standards, the trial court properly found that Mr. Thoren's evaluation departed from accepted architectural standards when it declared an active work zone without final inspection certificates to be Substantially Complete. We cannot agree with NTV's argument that the trial court's assessment of Mr. Thoren's testimony was incorrect. The trial court, when acting as fact-finder as it was in this case, is entitled to credit the testimony of one expert witness over that of another. In re T.W.M., 18 A.3d 815, 821 (D.C.2011) (per curiam). In resolving factual issues presented by conflicting expert testimony, the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the experts' qualifications, demeanor, experience, reasoning, and testimony. Rock Creek Plaza-Woodner Ltd. P'ship v. District of Columbia, 466 A.2d 857, 859 (D.C.1983). If there are appropriate grounds for disregarding an expert's testimony, the trial court may do so. . . . [And] the trial court is free to make its own independent evaluation of the evidence. . . . Id. We conclude that the court did not err by crediting the expert testimony of Mr. Joch and Mr. Luce over that of Mr. Thoren in reaching its finding that the Unit was not Substantially Complete when NTV demanded that WCD proceed to closing on the Unit. As a preliminary matter, we note that the court applied the correct standard in evaluating the expert opinions, as the contract required both Mr. Joch and Mr. Thoren to render their opinions reasonably. Although Mr. Joch had not read the contract's definition of Substantially Complete prior to his inspection, his failure to do so did not nullify the reasonableness of his opinion; the record reveals that his opinion was not unfounded. Before the inspection, he looked to architectural standards provided by the AIA, documents from liability insurance providers, and a manual that listed contract terminology and definitions for substantial completion. He testified that the definition of Substantially Complete in the contract, completed in the reasonable written opinion of the applicable architect . . . except for punch list and other items that do not materially interfere with the use of the unit, was fairly typical in [his] experience. Indeed, the contractual definition was consistent with his understanding of substantial completion as it is ordinarily used in the construction trade, which was always . . . at [the] end of the project when the space is ready for use. Usuallythat usually signifies the end of the construction contract work and everything [ha]s been installed and [is] acceptable minus the punch list. In short, we are satisfied that there is a sound basis in the record for the trial court's decision to reject Mr. Thoren's certification, and instead, to rely on the testimony of Mr. Luce and Mr. Joch in finding that the Unit was not Substantially Complete at the time NTV demanded that WCD proceed to closing.