St. Louis County, Mo. v. Oakville Development Co., Inc., 47650
| Decision Date | 11 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 47650,47650 |
| Citation | 676 S.W.2d 919 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OAKVILLE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. Lemay Bank & Trust Co., Defendant-Respondent. |
Thomas W. Wehrle, Clayton, for plaintiff-appellant.
David L. Welsh, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff St. Louis County appeals a judgment denying its petition for specific performance and ordering defendant bank to release $10,493.27 held in escrow to defendant Oakville Development Co., Inc. (Oakville).
Plaintiff County and defendant Oakville entered into an escrow agreement in which Oakville guaranteed that all improvements it undertook to make would be "installed, constructed and completed within two years from the date of the approval [of the project]." Oakville's engineer submitted to the County plans for the sewer project which required an expense of one to two thousand dollars. Plaintiff County requested a redesign which resulted in a cost of $25,000. Because of a rock condition in the area of construction the redesign did not function as anticipated.
The issue before the trial court was whether defendant Oakville completed construction as designed. The construction project included roadway and drainage work. Plaintiff's sole witness, its chief highway design engineer, testified that the roads were constructed in accordance with the approved plans and that the drainage system was built according to the plans as approved by the St. Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic. The construction was finished in December, 1976. An inspection in October, 1982 reflected deficiencies in the drainage system.
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the escrow contract to obtain an order that Oakville correct the deficiencies noted in 1982 and defendant counter-claimed for release of the funds from escrow. The trial court found that the storm water structure was constructed according to design criteria set by plaintiff. The court also found that defendant contractor had fully performed the terms of the escrow agreement, had fully completed the improvements required thereunder and had expended monies far in excess of the estimated costs of improvements for the project. Restated the court found the deficiencies were not in construction but in function.
Plaintiff County's abbreviated brief on appeal cites no legal authority for its position that the trial court erred in denying specific performance and releasing the funds from escrow. It merely contends that there was no evidentiary support for the trial court's finding of fact that "The subdivision improvements were built in 1976 according to plans approved by plaintiff and although deficiencies were noted in a 1982 inspection, the [plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
K.C. Roofing Center v. On Top Roofing, Inc.
...in piercing the corporate veil. The evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment. St. Louis County v. Oakville Dev. Co., 676 S.W.2d 919, 921 (Mo.App.1984). Most of the facts are derived from the testimony of Russell Nugent, who was called as an adverse witness by the......
-
Randel v. McClanahan
...is to be affirmed if it is correct under any reasonable theory supported by all the evidence. St. Louis County, Mo. v. Oakville Development, 676 S.W.2d 919, 921 (Mo.App.1984). Modification of a prior custody decree is controlled by Section 452.410, RSMo 1986, which The court shall not modif......
-
Tamko Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Arch Associates
...and inferences favorable to the prevailing party and disregard any contradictory testimony. St. Louis County, Mo. v. Oakville Development, 676 S.W.2d 919, 921 (Mo.App.1984). The principal question presented by this appeal is whether Holekamp Lumber's (Tamko's predecessor in interest) use of......
-
P.A.W. v. A.M.W.
...is to be affirmed if it is correct under any reasonable theory supported by the evidence. St. Louis County, Mo. v. Oakville Development Co., Inc., 676 S.W.2d 919, 921 (Mo.App.1984). In the instant case, as explained below, we find that the trial court could properly have terminated the moth......