Court Opinion

ID: 7824160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 18:03:05.330374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:36.684484
License: Public Domain

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice, dissenting. This case should be reversed and the suit dismissed. The order of the chancery court directs specific performance of an agreement by the City of Crossett to accept and maintain a sewer system located in the Woodlawn subdivision, which is owned by appellee Pacific Buildings, Inc. The City’s obligation to accept and maintain the sewer system was conditioned upon a finding that the system met the City’s standards. The evidence shows that the Woodlawn sewer system does not meet the City’s standards at present, nor has it ever. The chancellor’s findings to the contrary are clearly against a preponderance of the evidence. The City is also correct when it argues that the trial court erred in allowing witnesses for Pacific to remain in the courtroom in violation of A.R.E. Rule 615. Pacific’s predecessor in interest, Richard Kennedy, began the Woodlawn subdivision project in 1972. In order to obtain financing, Kennedy had to obtain the City’s commitment to maintain the sewer system once it was built. Plans for construction of the system were drafted to meet the City’s standards and were submitted by the engineering firm of Marion Crist and Associates in 1972. Those plans were approved by the City Engineer, the Planning Commission, and the Sewer Commission. Thereafter, the City voted in favor of a proposal to maintain the system. Approximately 30 lots were developed in 1973, and the sewer system was constructed by Byron Jones. During construetion, the City Engineer inspected and approved the system, which was connected to the City’s sewer system although the subdivision had its own pumping station. Kennedy testified that after construction, during the seven year period from 1972 until 1979, either he or his son maintained the sewer system. The record is clear that the City did nothing as concerns its commitment, and Kennedy did not require it. In fact, as the majority points out, when the City decided not to maintain the system in 1974, Kennedy had no knowledge of that action. This lack of knowledge was typical of the situation, and I find no support for the majority’s conclusion that there existed a working relationship between the parties as concerns who was to eventually maintain the system. By 1979, the system had deteriorated to such an extent that the pumps were failing, the system was overflowing, and at times it had simply shutdown. The record shows that from 1978 until 1979, neither Kennedy nor anyone else bothered to check the system. Finally, in 1979 Kennedy received a notice from the Department of Health concerning the Woodlawn sewer system. When Kennedy again went to the City Council to discuss the City’s commitment to maintain the system, he was informed that the City no longer considered itself bound by its original agreement. However, after another meeting, the City decided to accept and maintain the system provided: (1) Kennedy obtain certification that the system as originally installed was built according to City’s standards; or (2) Marion Crist and Associates certify that the system in its present condition met City standards. Yeatman, the engineer with Marion Crist who drafted the plans for the Woodlawn sewer system, informed Kennedy that he could not certify the system as originally built because he had not supervised its construction. However, he was willing to inspect the system and certify that in its present condition it was up to City’s standards. Upon inspection, Yeatman discovered that the system was plagued with malfunctions and construction errors such as sewer lines which ran beneath manholes but which had never been connected to the manholes. He contacted Kennedy and the City, outlined all of the deficiencies, and indicated he could not certify the system as being in compliance with City standards. For the next four years, between 1979 and 1983, Kennedy tried to upgrade the system on his own. He was not able to do much, and in 1983 he contacted a firm to overhaul the system. In 1984, Pacific bought out Kennedy’s interest as it became clear that the entire subdivision was failing. Pacific spent approximately $10,000.00 to install a new pumping system and to correct any problems as to the manholes — some of which could not be located. In fact, a few of the manholes had never been built, some were improperly installed, and several had not been connected or if connected had not been finished; others were overgrown with weeds and covered with garbage to the point that they were not functional. In 1986, after two inspections, Yeatman wrote a letter certifying the Woodlawn sewer system as meeting City standards. In 1987, Pacific contacted the City to request that the municipality accept and maintain the sewer system. The City declined and Pacific brought suit. Our standard of review in cases from .chancery court is that we review the entire case de novo but will not reverse unless the findings of the lower court are clearly erroneous or clearly against a preponderance of the evidence. Witt v. Rosen, 298 Ark. 187, 765 S.W.2d 956 (1989). The only real basis for the chancellor’s decree of specific performance is the 1986 letter by Yeatman in which he stated after inspection that the system met City standards. A preponderance of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the condition had never been satisfied. Yeatman testified that he had been involved in a majority of all sewer projects constructed in the City of Crossett since 1962. His firm drafted the plans and specifications for the Woodlawn sewer system, and he was aware of the necessity that the City assume maintenance of the system so that Kennedy could obtain financing. In fact, it was his understanding that the Woodlawn system was to be owned and operated by the City. Accordingly, the plans were drafted so that the system would meet the City standards. Byron Jones, who represented the firm that constructed the system, testified at trial that when he installed the service lines from the sewer mains to the lots, he would install only one line for every two lots. Apparently, he installed a service line at or near the juncture of the property lines for two lots, skipped a lot, and so on. The service lines ended in a “Y” so that two adjoining lots could tie in upon completion of the homes. An examination of the exhibits introduced at trial demonstrates that the plans and specifications for the sewer system called for one service line to be constructed per lot or home. Clearly, this was not done. Yeatman first learned of this fact at trial. He testified that his inspection of the system had not disclosed the failure by Jones to comply with the original plans since it would have been necessary to dig up the service lines or place a camera in the mains. Yeatman further testified that the failure to use or construct one service line for each lot would result in problems with the system in the future. Finally, Yeatman testified that he had not known of the defect when he wrote his certification letter in 1986; he then states, “now that I am aware of it, the system does not comply with the standards of the City of Crossett.” (Emphasis mine.) What the majority seems to ignore is that this undisputed testimony came from the individual who wrote the letter upon which the chancellor based his decree of specific performance. Yeatman drafted the Woodlawn sewer system plans in accordance with City standards to require one service line per lot; he later certified the system without knowing that it had not been constructed accordingly. Upon discovering the truth, he testified that the system did not meet City standards. The majority focuses its attention on the testimony of Dean Ray, the City’s building official. Ray testified at trial that whereas the City had adopted the State Plumbing Code, which he thought required one service line per lot or house, he could not find that requirement in the Code. Nevertheless, Ray went on to testify that “[t]he City is allowed to make amendments to the Code. I have been operating under the policy that requires one per service line.” (Emphasis mine.) I fail to understand the magical significance which the majority attaches to adoption of the State Plumbing Code when the evidence clearly demonstrates that the City of Crossett, its engineer, the Planning Commission, and the Sewer Commission all approved the plans submitted by Crist and Associates, which required one service line per lot. The City had the forsight to require one service line per lot in the construction of sewer systems and, obviously, the plans submitted by Yeatman evidenced the real standards of the City of Crossett, not the State Plumbing Code. Dean Ray testified that during the week before trial he conducted a complete examination of the Woodlawn sewer system. He stated that the connection between several of the manholes and the actual sewer main was nonexistent. Installation of these manholes had sometimes apparently involved no more than breaking an opening into the top of the sewer main below the manhole cover. Debris collected in the main and around the jagged edges near the bottom of the manhole. Both Ray and Yeatman testified that this condition did not comply with either the plans or the City’s standards. Ray further established that many of the deficiencies which originally caused Yeatman not to certify the system remained at the time of trial. To some extent, the mayor corroborated the existing defects in the system. The only testimony to refute the evidence concerning the condition of the system was presented by the individual who did the repairs, and he simply stated that to the best of his knowledge he had done everything required by Yeatman to bring the system up to par. If an enforceable agreement between the City and Pacific existed, it was that the City would maintain the Woodlawn sewer system once it met established City standards. The trial court found, based upon Yeatman’s 1986 letter, that the condition had been satisfied. That conclusion is clearly erroneous, even in light of the trial court’s ability to judge credibility, since by Yeatman’s undisputed testimony alone the Woodlawn sewer system fails to meet City standards — both with respect to the service lines and as to the problems with the manholes. On this point the case should be reversed and the suit dismissed. I disagree with the majority in at least one other respect. A.R.E. Rule 615 provides that upon the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. See e.g., Martin v. State, 22 Ark. App. 126, 736 S.W.2d 287 (1987). The standard of discretion given to the trial court by this part of the rule is that of no discretion. Blaylock v. Strecker, 291 Ark. 340, 724 S.W.2d 470 (1987). Use of the word “shall” makes exclusion of the witness mandatory. If a party requests the rule, it must be granted. Martin, supra; Blaylock, supra. The remainder of the rule exempts certain persons from its operation. In part, it provides that the rule does not authorize exclusion of “a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.” When an exception to the rule is sought under this language, it is usually based upon A.R.E. Rule 703. Martin, supra. Rule 703 deals with expert witnesses who will be present in court to hear the evidence. The exception is not automatic, however, and depends upon the extent to which the expert actually bases his opinion upon testimony presented in court. The witness should be allowed to remain only if his testimony is to be based upon matters testified to by other witnesses. When a party seeks to exempt an expert witness, the decision is within the discretion of the trial court, but this court will reverse if we find an abuse of that discretion. In the case at bar, after “the rule” had been requested at the start of trial, the City objected to the presence of Yeatman and Knight in the courtroom at every possible point in the trial. Pacific maintained that Yeatman and Knight came within the exception to the rule as they were expert witnesses whose presence at trial was necessary. The trial court allowed the witnesses to remain in the courtroom, and the City objected repeatedly as it became increasingly clear during trial that the testimony of the witnesses was based only upon what was within the personal knowledge of each and not upon the evidence introduced at trial. The chancellor found, at least as to Knight, that it had not been necessary for the witness to remain in the courtroom. Nonetheless, the City’s objections were overruled. The City argues that prejudice can be shown in that it intended to use the testimony of Byron Jones concerning his placement of the service lines on cross-examination of Yeatman and that the City lost the element of surprise when Yeatman was allowed to remain in the courtroom. I would conclude that because the rule is mandatory, the court should have excluded the witnesses unless it could be shown that they came within the exception. As it was clear that the witnesses did not need to remain in the courtroom, I feel the court abused its discretion. One final point needs to be made. All actions based upon any contract or obligation not in writing must be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues. The chancellor ruled that the statute of limitations had not run as the parties did not specify a time period during which Kennedy or Pacific had to bring the sewer system up to City standards. Where no time period has been specified, a reasonable time period will be presumed. Here, Pacific did not attempt to have the City assume control of the sewer system until either 1986 or 1987, which is seven to eight years after the 1979 vote by the City Council to accept and maintain the system provided it met City standards. I find no support for the majority’s position that the parties had been working together during this time to solve the question of who was to maintain the Woodlawn sewer system.