Lambert Cmty. Hous. Group, LP v. Wenzel
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-02127-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-24-2008 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Apportionment of fault Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-04-2006 Appealed from: QUITMAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Al Smith Disposition: JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF LAMBERT COMMUNITY HOUSING GROUP; CLAIMS AGAINST WILLIAM WENZEL DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE Case Number: 97-0075 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | LAMBERT COMMUNITY HOUSING GROUP, L.P. |
ADAM STONE |
|
|
| Appellee: | WILLIAM WENZEL | W.O. LUCKETT, JR., ROBERT M. TYNER, JR. | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Apportionment of fault |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lambert Housing was formed to build a multi-unit low-income housing development in Lambert. Wenzel P.A. contracted to perform “comprehensive architectural services” for the project, including periodic visits to the project site to determine if the work was being performed in accordance with the contract documents. William Wenzel, as president of Wenzel P.A., executed the American Institute of Architects’ form contract on the firm’s behalf. The Architect would review and certify the amounts due to the general contractor, Quality Construction, Inc. After William Wenzel had certified payment of $1,573,353 of the $2,115,715 contract sum, Lambert Housing sued several defendants, including Wenzel P.A. and William Wenzel, individually. Lambert Housing claimed that William Wenzel and Wenzel P.A. breached their duties by failing to identify and advise it of defective and non-conforming work of the general contractor and other named defendants involved in the project. Lambert Housing also claimed that William Wenzel and Wenzel P.A. made several negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations about the completion and quality of the project. Lambert Housing claimed to have suffered damages in the amount of $2,019,350. The jury found no compensatory damages for the breach of contract claim but awarded a verdict in favor of Lambert Housing for the negligence claim, awarding $1,949,932.85 in compensatory damages. The verdict form did not provide a space for apportioning fault to William Wenzel, individually. The jury apportioned fault to: Wenzel and Associates, P.A., 33.3%; Quality Construction, Inc., 33.4%; and Mid-South Development, Inc. 33.3%. The court entered a “final” judgment against Wenzel P.A. for 33.3% of the total judgment, or $643,477.84. Lambert Housing appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court. William Wenzel filed a motion to dismiss Lambert Housing’s appeal. The supreme court dismissed Lambert Housing’s appeal and William Wenzel’s motion to dismiss because the order of the circuit court did not resolve all claims against all parties; specifically, the judgment did not resolve claims against William Wenzel, individually. The circuit court entered a final judgment on the jury verdict, awarding damages against Wenzel P.A. and dismissing with prejudice all claims against all other parties, including all claims against William Wenzel, individually. Lambert Housing appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Lambert Housing argues that the circuit court’s decision is contrary to the jury verdict, as the jury clearly found that William Wenzel acted negligently. Although both parties argue that the issue is clear about whether the jury interpreted the term “Wenzel” to mean William Wenzel, individually, use of the term “Wenzel” in the form of the verdict is in conflict with the use of “Wenzel and Associates, P.A.” in the apportionment of fault. Lambert Housing argues that the circuit court could have resolved that ambiguity by requiring the jury to return an unambiguous verdict or applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis. The ultimate burden is on the circuit court to resolve the ambiguity. Throughout the pleadings filed with the circuit court, the usage of “Wenzel” by Lambert Housing and the defendants varies in meaning. This inconsistency carries over to the drafting of the jury instructions as well. Throughout the jury instructions the term “Wenzel” is used, but the term is rarely specifically defined by either parties’ instructions. Therefore, the proper course of action is to reverse and remand for a new trial in order to determine what portion of Wenzel P.A.’s judgment, if any, is attributable to William Wenzel, individually. Lambert Housing argues that William Wenzel is entirely responsible for Wenzel P.A.’s liability pursuant to section 79-10-67(1). The record indicates the involvement of other members of the Wenzel P.A. architectural firm in the project. While William Wenzel admitted that he was the “sole judge” regarding certification of payments, the record does not reflect whether or to what extent he may have relied upon information supplied to him by others in the firm in making that determination. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
