Warburton v. Tacoma School Dist. No. 10
| Decision Date | 17 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 34752,34752 |
| Citation | 55 Wn.2d 746,350 P.2d 161 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Stanton WARBURTON, Jr., Individually, and as Secretary of Pierce County Taxation Bureau, Appellant, v. TACOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 10, and Gordon Norman Johnston, Respondents. |
Hugo Metzler, Jr., Allan L. Overland, Tacoma, for appellant.
Northstrom, Dolack & Hansler, Tacoma, for respondents.
Gordon Norman Johnston, a licensed architect, entered into a contract with the board of directors of Tacoma school district No. 10 to prepare plans, secure bids, and supervise the construction of an addition to the Sheridan elementary school, at a cost not to exceed $212,102.45, for an agreed fee of six per cent of the total accepted bid. The employment contract provided, inter alia:
'Article II. The Architect's professional services consist of necessary conferences, preparation of preliminary studies, working drawing, specifications, large scale and full size detail drawings, the drafting of forms of proposals and contracts, all of which shall be approved by the Owner before submitted to bidders and before execution, the issuance of certificates of payment, keeping of accounts, general administration of the business and supervision of the work. * * *
'Article VII. Extra Services and Special Costs: If, after a definite scheme for the building has been approved, the Owner makes a decision which, for its proper execution, involves extra services and expenses for changes in or additions to the drawings, specifications and other documents, or if the Architect is put to labor and expense by delays caused by the Owner or Contractors, or by the delinquency or insolvency of the Contractor, or as a result of damages to the building by fire, he shall be equitably paid for such extra services and expense, the amount of which shall be determined prior to the rendition thereof.
'Should the execution of any work designated or specified by the Architect, or any part of such work, be abandoned or suspended, the Architect is to be paid in accordance with or in proportion to the terms of Article VIII for the services rendered on account of it, up to the time of such abandonment or suspension. * * *
The architect's plans and specifications were approved by the board, and bids were received. The lowest bid, in the sum of $310,892.67, was rejected by the district, after attempts to negotiate failed. Thereafter, preparatory to another call for bids, the board ordered the architect to alter the originally adopted plans and specifications in the following particulars: (1) change the design of the proposed annex by attaching it to the existing structure, instead of building a separate structure connected by covered passageways, as originally planned, (2) provide for alternate plans and specifications and for alternate bids with reference thereto, and (3) substitute less expensive materials for the original, more expensive, materials which had added principally to the building costs.
The architect revised the plans and specifications, as requested by the board, and, thereafter, a bid of $239,223.39 was received and accepted. The building was constructed, and the architect received a fee for his services of six per cent of the bid.
October 31, 1956, before the completion and acceptance of the annex and the full payment of the basic fee, the architect billed the district for additional professional services, in the sum of $3,446.56, as follows:
"Addition to Basic Fee for Redesign work due to necessity of
Rebidding the Addition to the Sheridan Elementary School
"Architectural Redesign .................. $1,360.00
"Smith & Murray, Structural Engineers ..... 1,288.75
"Walter S. Gordon, Electrical Engineer ...... 340.46
"David M. Hopkins, Mechanical Engineer ...... 197.08
"Tacoma Blueprint Company ................... 191.71
"Graham Blueprint Company .................... 68.56
----------
"Total Amount Due ............. $3,446.56 "
The allowance of the claim was questioned by the Pierce County Taxation Bureau and interested persons. The board requested its attorney to furnish a legal opinion as to the validity of the architect's claim. He recommended that the claim be disallowed. The opinion of the attorney for the architect was contrary to that of the school district's attorney, and a deputy prosecuting attorney for Pierce county concurred in the opinion of the attorney for the architect.
After several public meetings and conferences had been held, the board and the architect, upon advice of their respective attorneys, entered into a written agreement of compromise and settlement which reads, in part, as follows:
'Whereas, after considerable negotiations by the Architect, the School District, by Resolution of August 9, 1956, rejected all bids and directed the Architect to revise the plans and call for new bids; and
'Whereas, the Architect re-drafted the plans, which were approved by the School District, new bids were called for, contracts, let, and the Sheridan addition is now under construction; and
'Whereas, a bona fide dispute as to the legal meaning and effect of the agreement of June 23, 1955 and as to the rights and liabilities of the parties has arisen; and
'Whereas, after considerable negotiations between the School District and the Architect, and their respective attorneys, the parties are desirous of reaching a mutually satisfactory accord of their differences;
'Now, Therefore, it is agreed between the parties hereto that the School District shall pay to the Architect the sum of $3,019.69 in addition to the amount agreed upon in their contract of June 23, 1955, in full satisfaction of all claims by the Architect for additional compensation by reason of any and all extra work and expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Architect in regard to the said addition to Sheridan School as a result of the events and circumstances heretofore set forth.
May 31, 1957, the Pierce County Taxation Bureau was apprised of the action of the school board, and was informed that the claim would be presented for payment by warrant on June 10, 1957. The prosecuting attorney for Pierce county declined to institute an action to enjoin the board from issuing the warrant. Thereafter, Stanton Warburton, Jr., individually, and as secretary of the Pierce County Taxation Bureau, commenced this action against the school district to enjoin and restrain it from issuing the warrant in payment of the claim. Whether the plaintiff had the capacity to seek such relief was not questioned; hence, his capacity to sue is not an issue in this proceeding.
The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the claim lacked consideration, and that the compromise settlement agreement to pay it was void for the same reason. The school district's answer alleged that the compromise settlement of the claim was based upon a bona fide dispute, which arose out of an ambiguity in the contract.
By order of the court, Gordon Norman Johnston was joined as a party defendant. His answer alleged, inter alia, that the extra services claimed were performed, and compensation therefor was earned, due, and unpaid; that payment for such extra services was provided for under article No. 7 of the contract, and that the compromise settlement was effected 'under the threat of litigation and upon the advice of the said Prosecutor's Office,' and was based upon a valid consideration. The affirmative matters pleaded were denied by the plaintiff.
The cause was tried to the court, which entered judgment in favor of the defendants. From a judgment of dismissal, the plaintiff has appealed.
The appellant assigns error to the court's finding of fact that a dispute existed, and that the compromise was valid, and to its conclusions of law and judgment based thereon.
Appellant contends that the claim lacked consideration, for the reason that the architect (as shown by the itemized claim) performed no service for the district, other than that required of him by article No. 16 of the contract, and that the claim, therefore, had no validity either in fact or in law.
In the instant proceeding, we are not primarily concerned with whether or not the claim was one which would stand the test of its validity in court. The primary issue here is the validity of the compromise agreement. The facts are not in dispute, and are substantially as set out heretofore. The rules of law relating to compromise settlements are well established, and, in so far as they are applicable to the instant proceeding, are as follows:
The law favors compromise settlements. Buob v. Feenaughty Machinery Co., 1940, 4 Wash.2d 276, 294, 103 P.2d 325. A municipal corporation has inherent power to enter into a compromise settlement of disputed claims, arising out of a subject matter concerning which the municipality has the general power to contract. Abrams v. City of Seattle, 1933, 173 Wash. 495, 502, 23 P.2d 869. See, also, Christie v. Port of Olympia, 1947, 27 Wash.2d 534, 179 P.2d 294.
In the absence of a showing of fraud or manifest abuse of discretion, the elements which govern the power and authority of a municipal corporation to exercise its discretion and compromise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. & Soos Creek Water & Sewer Dist. v. King Cnty.
...81 Perhaps acknowledging this problem, the districts assert standing to raise their challenges, instead, under Warburton.2Id. at 10. But in Warburton, this court affirmed the dismissal of a city official's challenge to a school district's compromise of a claim with an outside architect. It ......
-
Southern Corrections Sys. v. Union City Pub. Sch.
...that it is entitled to payment regardless of the constitutionality of the underlying debt. It relies on Warburton v. Tacoma School District No. 10, 55 Wash.2d 746, 350 P.2d 161 (1960) in support of its argument. The school district asserts that no settlement agreement was actually made beca......
-
Ledsome v. Ledsome
... ... 606] In Acker v. Acker, 365 So.2d 180 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978), the District Court of Appeal of Florida held ... W.Va.Const., Art. III, § 10; U.S. Const., 14th Amend ... 161 W.Va. at 436-37, 242 ... ...
-
Nelson v. Pacific County
... ... Warburton v. Tacoma School Dist. 10, 55 Wash.2d 746, 350 P.2d 161 ... ...