Opinion ID: 1767590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Should the bond be used to fund the award of repair costs and improvements to the subdivision?

Text: Essex objects to the language of the trial court's judgment stating that the county is entitled to hold the bonds to Guarantee the improvements, arguing there is no provision in the Guarantee that the county be allowed to hold the bond. The trial court makes clear a few lines later that by hold, it means that Essex and Federal, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the entire remainder of the Bonds in the amount of $1,015,838.00 to the County pursuant to the terms of the Bonds, the Guarantee Agreement, and Subdivision Regulations so the County may complete the Subdivision improvements consistent with the County's and Intervenor's evidence of deficiencies and in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations and approved plans. Again, Essex relies on what is essentially a semantic distinction. The county will not hold the bond. The surety, Federal, will pay out the remainder of the bond so that the county may complete the desired improvements. Essex argues that this expands beyond the original meaning of the bond's terms because the court is vague about precisely which improvements will need to be done. The record shows that the court reviewed the estimated costs of construction submitted by the county and deemed them accurate and reasonable. This Court has no reason to second-guess that judgment. Further, the county provided Essex with a detailed list of deficiencies that would need to be remedied to meet the terms of the Guarantee. Essex failed to remedy those deficiencies, and so the job now falls to the county. The trial court's judgment in releasing the remainder of the bond to the county to conduct the necessary improvements is affirmed.