Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)

Citation: Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)
Parent Document: Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 1989-06-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561260/meadowbrook-condominium-assn-v-... ↗

Full Text

1,529 chars

In resolving this issue, our review of the record need go no farther than the court's unchallenged findings regarding the necessary repairs. These findings reflect an obviously painstaking analysis by the trial court, which was presented with an abundance of contradictory, technical testimony by opposing expert witnesses. The Association's expert concluded that a proper repair effort would require that all of the roads in the development be taken up so that the subsurface could be excavated and replaced. The witness for SBRC, on the other hand, testified that little excavation was needed and that most of the necessary repair could be effected either by filling and application of an overlay of asphalt or by application of a "shim coat" followed by an overlay. Rather than accepting either of these extreme positions, the court found that excavation would be required in three specific areas and that shim coats with an overlay would be sufficient elsewhere. This more discriminating analysis resulted in a cost estimate that was also between the two extremes proposed by the expert witnesses. "Evidence that provides reasonable certainty in the estimation of damages is `sufficient to call for the exercise of sound judgment and to require a decision.'" Coty v. Ramsey Associates, 149 Vt. 451, 462, 546 A.2d 196, 204 (1988) (quoting Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. Town of Hinesburg, 135 Vt. 484, 487, 380 A.2d 64, 67 (1977)). The trial court's finding with respect to the cost of repair was not clearly erroneous.[2] IV.

Other Sections in This Document (98)

Full Text