Levine v. Rendler
| Decision Date | 03 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 260,260 |
| Citation | 320 A.2d 258,272 Md. 1 |
| Parties | Isaac Don LEVINE et ux. v. Norbert J. RENDLER et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
John A. Wolf, Baltimore (J. Nicholas Shriver, Jr., Baltimore, and Thomas F. Mudd, La Plata, on the brief), for appellants.
T. Myron Loyd, Waldorf, for appellees.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and O'DONNELL, JJ.
Chagrined at the failure of a developer to construct roads in a subdivision in which they had purchased lots, appellees, Norbert J. Rendler et al., sought legal redress. They sued appellants, Isaac Don Levine and Ruth N. Levine, his wife (the Levines), in the Circuit Court for Charles County. We shall here affirm a judgment of $39,500 entered in favor of those plaintiffs (the landowners) whose causes of action survived the Levines' motions for directed verdict. 1
The subdivision, known as 'Pinewood,' is located in Charles County. It was shown that the Levines sold lots between October 19, 1965, and February 18, 1971, to various plaintiffs at prices ranging from $3,752.50 to $6,500.00. The landowners alleged in their declaration that representations were made by the Levines 'or their agent, servant or employee, as the Sellers of said lot(s)' to the effect 'that the road thru Pinewood Subdivision would be paved at the (Levines') expense, in strict compliance with (Charles) County specifications so that upon completion of the paving, Charles County would agree to take over and maintain said road'; that the full purchase price for each of said lots had been paid; that the road has never been paved; and '(t)hat Charles County was prepared to make its final inspection prior to and subsequent to the paving of said road and that there were no conditions under the control of the County Commissioners other than that the said road meet the County's specifications, which had to be met prior to the paving of said road.'
Richard Eric Cramer, a Charles County real estate agent called as a witness on behalf of the property owners, testified that the Levines listed the Pinewood subdivision with his firm in 1965. He further said:
To corroborate the testimony of Cramer, a letter was produced which he identified as a copy of what he handed to prospective purchasers. He said that after he ran out of copies of the letter he represented to purchasers that which was said in the letter. The letter read:
The roads in this subdivision have been built in strict compliance with County specifications, except that the double Bituminous Surface Treatment has not yet been applied. We are prepared to apply it at this time, but are informed that it is the normal policy of the Board of Commissioners to wait until a reasonable number of families reside in the subdivision before taking over the roads.
This letter is therefore issued to assure that whenever the County is ready to make its final inspection for the purpose of taking the roads over, we stand prepared to give them the required double BST, at out expense, just prior to the said final inspection.
When you construct your driveway entrance, you will have to use a corrugated metal pipe not less than 20 feet in length, and not less than 15 inches in diameter, in order to comply with the County road specifications.
Very truly yours,
For the Pinewood Subdivision
s/ Isaac Don Levine
s/ Ruth N. Levine
All parties agree that the regulations of Charles County relative to construction of roads in subdivisions in effect in 1965 said:
'The application of 2 inches of Bituminous Concrete is recommended and encouraged as a surface for these roadways, but in no event will less than a double Bituminous Surface treatment of less than 24 in width be accepted.'
They likewise agree that effective January, 1969, that county adopted a much more comprehensive road ordinance. Under it, the 'double Bituminous Surface treatment' was no longer permitted, but the application of two inches of bituminous concrete was required. The difference between the two specifications was succinctly explained by Tom W. Hall, the former engineer for Charles County, who, in the interim, had become resident maintenance engineer in that county for the State Highway Administration:
He explained that a prime coat of oil is sprayed on the gravel surface in the double bituminous surface treatment. A heavier coat of asphalt is sprayed on the highway surface after the first coat has penetrated for at least 24 hours. This is followed by a layer of 'blue chip.' Then, after waiting several hours or, preferably, overnight, the same process would be repeated with a layer of heavier asphalt and another layer of 'blue chip.' He further explained:
'Blacktop or bituminous concrete is made in a plant, in a mix plant similar to the way that concrete is made in a plant. It is a percentage of liquid asphalt which is heavier grade than you use in surface treatment, is mixed in a plant with a certain amount of dust, a certain amount of one-sized stone and a certain amount of another sized stone and it's similar to the way you make cement concrete. This is bituminous concrete and your concrete that you make buildings out of or build roads out of, is Portland cement.
The present county engineer for Charles County, called as a witness by the Levines, testified that Hall's description of the differences in processes was a fair statement. He agreed that it '(w)ould . . . be fair to say then under the old regulations they encouraged asphalt but you could get by with double surfaced treatment.'
Hall, the former engineer, testified that the cost of preparation of the road is identical for both methods of surface treatment, but that the cost of bituminous concrete is about double the cost of bituminous surface treatment. He explained that the bituminous surface treatment will last approximately three to five years, but the bituminous concrete will last 15 to 20 years.
Robert H. Portzen, an expert called on behalf of the landowners, testified that the cost of completion of the roads in the subdivision with a double bituminous surface treatment would be $29,171.00, while the cost of completing those roads with bituminous concrete would be $30,875.00.
Nicholas J. Scarpa, the present county engineer for Charles County, gave an estimate that the cost of construction of roads in this subdivision with bituminous concrete would be $46,680.00. From this, with the statement of Hall that the cost of bituminous concrete is about double the cost of bituminous surface treatment, the Levines reason that '(t)he cost of said double Bituminous Surface Treatment would have been (in 1973) approximately $20,000.00, the maximum amount which under Plaintiffs' theory of law-the enforcement of Defendants' agreement-Plaintiffs could have hoped to recover.' To reach this conclusion there are certain assumptions that must be made. One would be that $23,340.00 (one-half of $46,680.00) would be approximately $20,000.00, and it would be further necessary to assume the correctness of both estimates. Otherwise, one must assume that Scarpa, called as a witness by the Levines, erred in his estimate of $46,680.00 for construction with bituminous concrete or that Hall, a witness for the property owners, erred in his estimate that the cost of such construction with bituminous concrete would be about double the cost of construction with the bituminous surface treatment.
The case was tried in the circuit court and argued to us upon the assumption of all parties that the representations by the Levines or their agents to the landowners survived execution and delivery of the deed to each of the various parties plaintiff.
Two contentions are advanced to us. The first is that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant the motion of the Levines for a directed verdict on the grounds of legal impossibility of performance. The second contention concerns instructions to the jury and is in two parts. It is claimed (a) that the jury should have been instructed on the theory of legal impossibility of performance of the agreement because of the change in road specifications, and (b) that the jury should have been instructed, as requested by the Levines, '(o)n the provision in (the Levines') agreement that a reasonable number of families had to reside in the subdivision before (the Levines) were required to hard-surface the roads, so as to permit the jury to consider whether in fact a reasonable number of families resided in the subdivision, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...302 Md. 175, 179, 486 A.2d 196, 198 (1985); Sergeant Co. v. Pickett, 285 Md. 186, 194, 401 A.2d 651, 655 (1979); Levine v. Rendler, 272 Md. 1, 13, 320 A.2d 258, 265 (1974). The test for whether an instruction was proper has two aspects: (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law, ......
-
Impala Platinum Ltd. v. Impala Sales (U.S.A.), Inc.
...o. v. tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence. See Beahm v. Shortall, 279 Md. 321, 341-342, 368 A.2d 1005 (1977); Levine v. Rendler, 272 Md. 1, 12, 320 A.2d 258 (1974); Katz v. Holsinger, 264 Md. 307, 311, 286 A.2d 115 (1972) and discussion Infra. "Instead of granting or denying the mot......
-
Hamilton v. Caplan
...it is error to refuse a requested instruction where sufficient evidence was presented to generate a jury issue. Levine v. Rendler, 272 Md. 1, 13, 320 A.2d 258 (1974); Schaefer v. Publix Parking Systems, 226 Md. 150, 152-53, 172 A.2d 508 The burden of establishing all the elements of a gift ......
-
Lowry v. State
...in the case which supports it.'" Sergeant Co. v. Pickett, 285 Md. 186, 194, 401 A.2d 651, 655 (1979), quoting Levine v. Rendler, 272 Md. 1, 13, 320 A.2d 258, 265 (1974); Fowler v. Benton, 245 Md. 540, 548-549, 226 A.2d 556, 562, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 851, 88 S.Ct. 42, 19 L.Ed.2d 119 (1967)......