Opinion ID: 1690049
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: H. A. Approval.

Text: The addendum called for interest on the unpaid balance from time of final subdivision approval by municipality and approved by state of Wisconsin and F. H. A. approval and improvements completed and accepted by City of Port Washington. The trial court found that all these conditions had been met by December 1, 1961. Appellant assails this finding in regard to the F. H. A. approval. In the first place, appellant argues that the agreement calls for an unconditional commitment before the interest provision is even triggered. Not only does the agreement fail to expressly call for this, but according to Robert Fetherston, the assistant director of F. H. A. for Wisconsin, an unconditional commitment would be impossible to obtain in the present case. The agreement merely requires approval and in the F. H. A. vernacular, this means acceptance. Appellant next contends that the F. H. A. issued a subdivision report on July 1, 1961, and that compliance was not had with certain requirements contained in that report until much later than December 1, 1961. It is true that the F. H. A. noted on the report the dates the particular requirements were complied with and that many of these dates were later than December 1, 1961, but testimony showed that these notations were not designations of the exact time of compliance, but were merely affixed by F. H. A. as a matter of routine to show when they learned that the requirements had been met. Furthermore, although the date of compliance with one or more of the requirements may have been later than December 1st, there was no evidence to show that the F. H. A. approval could not have been obtained by that date if a concerted effort had been made to obtain the approval. According to the report, a subdivision plat had been received as of August 8, 1962. Fetherston testified in effect that this date was unimportant since the F. H. A. actually had knowledge that the requirement had been satisfied which is all the plat would showprior to December 1, 1961. Several separate specifications relating to utilities and street improvements were labeled city letter and dated as having been performed in September of 1962. The words city letter mean that correspondence had been received from the municipality involved stating compliance with the condition. When asked whether this was the date the things were done, Fetherston testified: I can't say definitely that that is the date this work was done. It might have been done prior to this, but that is the time we received our notice and our condition was satisfied so far as our local office was concerned. Fetherston was then asked: Now, with this subdivision report before you, I am going to ask you a hypothetical question. Assuming an acceptable borrower, assuming compliance by the builder with F. H. A. construction standards, could Mr. Lesperance have successfully processed an application for F. H. A. insurance on or about December 1, 1961? Appellant's counsel objected on the grounds that the hypothetical did not include all the factors. Counsel was permitted to elaborate as follows: The missing factors being that all of the conditions which are required in Exhibit 5 and which were shown not to have been accomplished until after December 1, 1961, remained unsatisfied. Fetherston then answered: Our office under those circumstances could have issued a firm commitment in the name of the buyer or the borrower. Of course, before we would permit final endorsement of the mortgage note that would be the result of this commitment, we would want satisfactory evidence that the required improvements had been performed or put in, or we had assurance they were going in. In other words, we could issue the commitment for insurance but it would be predicated upon compliance with our subdivision report. He further testified that the city letters are not required before the issuance of the request for the final compliance report. Appellant emphasizes Fetherston's statement on cross-examination that the final compliance inspection report could not have been issued nor a note endorsed on December 1st on the basis of the status of affairs as reflected by the July 1st report. But Fetherston had never testified that the note would have been endorsed or the final report issued on December 1st. Rather he explained that a commitment could have been granted by that date and the note endorsed and the report issued once the proper proofs had been filed. Appellant also argues that the subdivision would not have been approved (accepted) because special assessments were not paid until February of 1963. In fact, however, respondents paid the assessments in three instalments, the first in December of 1961 pursuant to an arrangement with the city of Port Washington. There is no affirmative testimony in the record to the effect that there would nonetheless have been acceptance. On the other hand there is no testimony that payment in this manner would be fatal to an F. H. A. commitment. Despite the conflicting evidence, again it cannot be said that the trial court's finding as to the date of F. H. A. approval is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.