Survey Eng. v. Zoline Foundation

Full title: Survey Engineers, Inc., a Colorado corporation v. The Zoline Foundation…

Court: Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc

Date published: Aug 22, 1977

568 P.2d 436 (Colo. 1977)

568 P.2d 436

Opinion

No. C-668

Decided August 22, 1977. Rehearing denied September 26, 1977.

Surveying corporation brought action against landowner for services rendered in surveying land.

Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part.

1. BOUNDARIES — Survey — Benefit — Award of Interest — Affirmed. Where district court, on remand, concluded that a particular survey caused a benefit in the sum of $607.50 and awarded interest from May 8, 1973 to the defendants, held, since this finding is supported by the record, it is therefore affirmed by reviewing court.

2. COSTS — Assessment — Determination — Error — Statute. Where district court made a determination and assessed costs against successful plaintiff, a surveying corporation, in favor of defendant landowner, held, this determination and assessment, as such, constituted error under section 13-16-105, C.R.S. 1973.

Appeal from the District Court of Pitkin County, Honorable Gavin D. Litwiller, Judge.

Robert A. Francis, for petitioner-appellant (formerly petitioner).

Charles M. Stoddard, for defendants-appellees (formerly respondents).

Per Curiam

We previously reviewed the issues in this case in Survey Engineers, Inc. v. Zoline Foundation, 190 Colo. 352, 546 P.2d 1257 (1976). Our opinion directed:

"Remand to the trial court for a determination based on the record regarding what benefit, if any, the respondents [Zoline Foundation] received from the inaccurate survey, the value of that benefit, and for entry of judgment based on those findings." (Emphasis in original.)

[1] On remand, the district court concluded that the survey caused a benefit of $607.50 and awarded interest from May 8, 1973, to The Zoline Foundation. The finding of the district court is supported by the record and is, therefore, affirmed.

[2] The district court also decreed that the defendants be awarded judgment for their costs expended. The district court's determination and assessment of costs against the plaintiff was error and is, therefore, vacated and set aside. Section 13-16-105, C.R.S. 1973. Each party to pay its own costs.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part and cause remanded with directions.