Ahrens v. Broyhill, 1678.

• Decision Date: 26 October 1955
• Docket Number: No. 1678.,1678.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals
• Parties: Myron L. AHRENS, William P. Allen, Earl B. Amey et al., Appellants, v. M. T. BROYHILL, M. T. Broyhill, Jr., and Joel T. Broyhill, All Trading as M. T. Broyhill & Sons, Appellees.

117 A.2d 452

Myron L. AHRENS, William P. Allen, Earl B. Amey et al., Appellants, v. M. T. BROYHILL, M. T. Broyhill, Jr., and Joel T. Broyhill, All Trading as M. T. Broyhill & Sons, Appellees.

No. 1678.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued September 19, 1955.

Decided October 26, 1955.

Harry I. Rand, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Oren R. Lewis, Arlington, Va., of the Virginia Bar, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom C. Wynne Tolbert, Arlington, Va., was on the brief, for appellees.

Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

On various dates beginning in 1950, Broyhill & Sons sold to various purchasers a large number of houses in a subdivision known as Langley Park, in Prince Georges County, Maryland. This action was brought in 1953 by 194 of the purchasers against the Broyhills, demanding a total of $207,799.20, for their alleged failure to "redeem" certain front-foot benefit charges which had been levied against the real estate. Plaintiffs based their claim on a provision in the sales contracts that defendants would convey title, "free and clear of all liens and indebtedness of every kind." Defendants' answer asserted that the identical claim had been decided in their favor in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in a class action brought in behalf of all property owners in the Langley Park subdivision; and also that the same claim had been made in a group of actions in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia, which actions were likewise decided in favor of defendants. A separate defense — on which the case was decided below — was that the front-foot benefit charge involved was not a lien or indebtedness against the property, but on the contrary was a tax which had been prorated and adjusted at the settlement of each of the contracts; that at such settlement all matters including front-foot benefit charges were fully and completely adjusted and the settlements agreed to by each of the parties.

After a trial of several days' duration the trial court found that plaintiffs had failed to sustain their burden of proof and that there had been no promise or representation, as claimed by two of the plaintiffs, that the Broyhills would pay the front-foot charges. This appeal has been taken from the judgment which was entered in favor of defendants.

It seems necessary to recite the more important phases of the evidence. The front-foot benefit charges were levied against the various properties by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, which is a municipal corporation operating in parts of Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, Maryland, adjacent to the District of Columbia.¹ Plaintiffs called as a witness an official of the Commission who testified to the manner of assessing and collecting the charges. He said that they could be extinguished by a lump-sum payment to the Commission within one year, but admitted that the Commission usually looked to the present owner for payment of the current annual charges no matter how many times the property had changed hands. This was the essence of the testimony for plaintiffs.

Defendants presented several witnesses who testified that the benefit charges were treated as taxes to be prorated and adjusted at the settlement of each contract and that at the settlement all matters, including the front-foot benefit charges, were fully and completely adjusted without objection by the purchasers. Three witnesses stated that at the settlement of the contracts appellants advanced payment of the charges for the succeeding nine to twelve months, and that all papers, including the settlement sheets, were examined and accepted by appellants in writing without objection, some of them being present with their attorneys. All papers connected with the settlement were in evidence.

Two witnesses, one a member of the law firm which handled the settlements and the other an officer of the title company which examined the titles, testified that they considered the front-foot charges to be taxes, that they were so treated in all the transactions, and that they were collected as such. An officer of the lending agency which financed the purchases, testified that under the deeds of trust, signed by the purchasers, his company paid taxes and front-foot benefit charges due after the date of settlement, and charged the amount thereof to the principal of the trust to be paid by the purchasers. The letter of instructions and other settlement papers showed that the front-foot benefit charges here involved were handled in the manner just described.

In rebuttal one of plaintiffs testified that in signing the contract he relied on the statement of appellees' salesmen that there would be no assessment for "paving, curbing, sidewalks, and the like." But he admitted that at the time of settlement he inspected all the papers and that he read and understood the deed of trust requiring the purchaser to pay taxes. He also admitted that he or his wife had, after the settlement, paid the required charge to the lending company and that they had made no protest either to...