Opinion ID: 1767590
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Should Essex and Federal, jointly and severally, pay the entire remainder of the bonds in the amount of $1,015,838.00 to Jefferson County?

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.
The language of the Guarantee provides that if the developer, Essex, shall abandon the Subdivision or fail to complete the improvements within one (1) year hence from the date of the COUNTY'S approval of this Guarantee Agreement, the County may complete, or have completed, the said improvements and the SURETY shall disburse on the land subdivision bonds therefore, as ordered and directed by the COUNTY. The trial court made a finding that Essex's failure to perform any more work in the Subdivision, to complete the improvements prior to July 26, 2001, as required by the County and the Guarantee Agreement, and its filing of the lawsuit in June of 2001 claiming that the Subdivision was complete, is tantamount to an abandonment of the Subdivision, in direct contravention to the Guarantee Agreement. A finding of abandonment is not necessary to a holding that the bonds should be released to the County, and this Court does not reach a conclusion as to whether Essex's actions constitute abandonment. As discussed above, however, Essex did fail to complete the improvements within one year of the Guarantee, which is the other triggering condition for releasing the bonds to the county. Because Essex failed to complete the necessary improvements within the mandated time frame, the trial court's judgment that the amount of money remaining in the bonds should be released to the county is affirmed.