DONALD E. MARSHALL AND MARION JUNE MARSHALL, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
KARL F. SCHULTZ, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND KARL F. SCHULTZ, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the measure of damages for a contractor's breach by abandonment is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost to complete the improvement, not just the cost to cure defects in completed work.
A contractor sued to foreclose a mechanic's lien, and the homeowners counterclaimed for breach of contract due to defective performance and abandonmen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mechanic'S Lien Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Karl F. Schultz, Inc. (Schultz) sued to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against appellants for work performed in building their home. Appellants counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging defective performance and abandonment of the work. Prior to trial, Schultz voluntarily dismissed its suit for mechanic’s lien. The court ultimately awarded appellants $1,000 damages on their counterclaim and attorney’s fees for successfully defending the mechanic’s lien action.
The evidence demonstrates that Schultz breached the contract by abandoning the construction of appellants’ home. Yet, in awarding damages for the breach, the court erroneously limited appellants’ recovery to the amount it cost them to cure the defects in the work that Schultz had actually completed.
Where a contractor breaches a contract by failing to complete an improvement, the owner’s measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost to complete the improvement in accordance with the contract. Sea Ledge Properties, Inc. v. Dodge, 283 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 285 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1973); C. McCormick, McCormick on Damages § 169 (1935); An-not., 76 A.L.R.2d 805, 831 (1961). The owner is also entitled to damages for delay in the completion of the improvement measured by its rental value during the period of the delay. 5 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 1092 (1964); Olson v. Quality-Pak Co., 93 Idaho 607, 469 P. 2d 45 (1970); Gregory v. Weber, 51 Or.App. 547, 626 P. 2d 392 (1981); Potter v. Anderson, 85 S.D. 142, 178 N.W. 2d 743 (1970); Ryan v. Thurmond, 481 S.W. 2d 199 (Tex.Civ.App.1972).
The judgment for damages is reversed, and the case is remanded for a redetermination of compensatory damages.1 In order to make an appropriate award, the court may entertain additional testimony.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHOON-OVER, J., concur. . Appellants’ other, points on appeal have no merit.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorchester Dev., Inc. v. Tema Burk, 439 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…t constructed by a certain time. Where the seller is obligated to complete by a time certain, the purchaser is not limited, as here, to the remedy of rescission, but he may affirm the contract and seek damages. See Marshall v. Karl F. Schultz, Inc., 438 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (where contractor breaches a contract by failing to complete an improvement, owner’s measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost to complete the improvement and damages for delay in the…
-
Russo v. Heil Constr., Inc., 549 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…owner is entitled to damages for delay in completion measured by the reasonable rental value of the improvement during the period of delay. Vanater v. Tom Lilly Construction, 483 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) and Marshall v. Karl F. Schultz, Inc., 438 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). This principle was recognized by the parties in a pretrial stipulation incorporated into the pretrial order.1 The contractor argues that the offset given by the lower court did not represent the lease payment, but was in fact a…
-
Vanater v. TOM Lilly Constr., 483 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…emanded final payment. Where a contractor breaches a contract by failing to complete an improvement, the owner is entitled to damages for delay in completion measured by its rental value during the period of delay. Marshall v. Karl F. Schultz, Inc., 438 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The owner is entitled to $525 for lost rent. Because of our holding, the owner is the “prevailing party” under Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1983). We remand to the trial court for the entry of an appropriate final judgment…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- SEA Ledge Props., Inc. v. Dodge, 283 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Fla. Cities Water Co. v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Sarasota Cnty., 285 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1973)
- Dodge v. SEA Ledge Props., Inc., 285 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1973)