Deuel v. McCollum

• Decision Date: 15 April 1965
• Docket Number: CA-CIV,No. 1,1
• Citation: 1 Ariz.App. 188,400 P.2d 859
• Parties: E. W. DEUEL, Appellant, v. Glenn A. McCOLLUM and George K. Rubel, Appellees. * 1.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 859

400 P.2d 859

1 Ariz.App. 188

E. W. DEUEL, Appellant, v. Glenn A. McCOLLUM and George K. Rubel, Appellees. ^*

No. 1 CA-CIV 1.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

April 15, 1965.

Kenneth Biaett, Phoenix, for appellant.

John H. Dick, Chandler, for appellees.

CAMERON, Judge.

This is a suit by Glenn A. McCollum and George K. Rubel, the plaintiffs below, against E. W. Deuel, the defendant below, for breach of contract. Defendant counterclaimed, trial was held before the court without a jury, judgment was rendered against the defendant, on his counterclaim, and for the plaintiff in the amount of $3,558.43, plus $650.00 attorney's fees. From the judgment, defendant appeals.

Sometime in August, 1957, the parties hereto entered into negotiations for the subdivision of ten acres of land in Phoenix, Arizona, owned by the defendant Deuel. On or about 20 November, 1957, a contract dated 19 August, 1957, was executed by the parties. The contract was a printed form provided by plaintiffs as architects, and contained blank spaces which were filled in by typewriter, and had other portions crossed out. Paragraph A stated as follows:

'A. THE PROJECT AND THE ARCHITECT'S SERVICES: The Architect's professional services consist of the necessary conferences, the preparation of the preliminary sketches and studies, working drawings, specifications, large scale and full size drawings, for architectural, plumbing, heating & cooling, structural, electrical and other mechanical work; assistance in the drafting of forms of proposals and contracts; the issuance of certificates for payment; the keeping of accounts, the general administration of the business and supervision of the Work.'

Then under 'Description of the Project' the form had been filled in by typewriter with the following language:

'plan, design and develop a subdivision of 10 acres more or less (lot 9 Ambassador Heights, MCR, Phoenix, Arizona), prepare brochures, plan and design dwellings and appurtenant structures, and supervise construction thereof.'

The contract provided for a retainer fee of $150.00 which was recited to constitute the minimum fee payable with the balance of the fee to be paid as follows:

'Architectural & Land Planning Fee, Total Design of Project less engineering fees and less individual dwelling design & supervision fees the amount of Three Thousand One Hundred ($3100.00) to be prorated into the release price of each lot at $100.00 per lot.'

In case of abandonment of the project, the contract had the following provision:

'8. Abandonment of the Project--If the Owner abandons the Project, the Architect is to be compensated in proportion to the services performed under the Contract. If such abandonment occurs prior to completion of the preliminary stage of the Architect's services, the Owner shall pay to the Architect as his compensation, in addition to the minimum fee payable hereunder: (a) the Architect's cost of technical employee's salaries employed on the Project and for the time expended by partners on the project; plus (b) two hundred percent of (a) overhead and fee. Partner's time under (a) shall be calculated at the rate of $7.50 per hour. In the event of abandonment of the project, the Architect is to be reimbursed by the Owner for all expenses incurred or for which he is committed, including the cost of mechanical and structural engineers, planners, or consultants.'

The contract defined the word 'abandonment' as follows:

'ABANDONMENT: The word 'abandonment' shall mean the termination of the project or operations before completion.'

In addition to the architectural services, the contract provided that the owner agreed to retain an engineering firm to perform required engineering services under the direction of plaintiff. The contract also provided for reasonable attorney's fees in the event the matter should be placed in the hands of an attorney for collection. From August, 1957, until June, 1958, several plats of the area in question were drawn, some changes were made, and a trust agreement was entered into with a trust company to provide for the payment of fees and other necessary arrangements should financing be obtained. The representative from the trust company indicates that there are letters from an insurance company, February, April and May of 1958, concerning the financing of the property, and questions concerning partial release clauses as well as an alleyway on the plat. Testimony also indicates that Mr. Rubel had conferences not only with the trust company and the engineering...