Opinion ID: 2399087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Sinking Fund

Text: The plaintiff asserts that the trial justice erred in failing to establish a sinking fund as part of the cost of the parking easement. It maintains that the establishment of a sinking fund, to which. LCA would contribute its fair share, [is necessary] to insure that the inevitable expense of major repairs and replacement of the parking areas/structures, will be funded. To support this assertion, plaintiff relies upon testimony from its expert witness, Dr. Chantee Lewis, who explained that a sinking fund is one of the major expenses in operating, insuring, and maintaining indoor parking. In her decision, the trial justice declared the language of the easement to be clear and unequivocal by its plain and ordinary meaning. After considering the easement language, she was: unconvinced that such a [sinking] fund was ever contemplated as part of the parties' bargain, and being mindful that Dr. Lewis was employing an `expanded' definition of expense, the court declines to order any reimbursement for any sums related to a `sinking fund.' The trial justice noted that the sinking fund expense was raised for the first time by plaintiff at trial, and that, [d]espite the fact that the lawsuit has been pending since 1993, this item of `expense' was not in controversy until the testimony of Dr. Chantee Lewis was presented at trial. She observed that Dr. Lewis had characterized the pertinent business records as spotty, and stated that, despite his conclusion that a sinking fund was properly included in the expenses of the operation[,] she was not satisfied that a fair preponderance of the credible evidence support[ed] such a conclusion. After reviewing the record, we cannot say that the trial justice misapplied the law, misconceived or overlooked material evidence or made factual findings that were clearly wrong in declining to establish a sinking fund as part of the parking easement expenses of 360 Thames Street.