T. S. PARRISH AND J. D. GOIN, LATE CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS PARRISH & GOIN, AND LEE DEKLE AND M. M. JETTON, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against contractors and their sureties, finding the awarded amount potentially excessive due to unexplained increases in building costs after the contractors' default.
The judgment against the sureties was apparently excessive because it is not clear that the increases in cost due to plan changes after default were properly excluded from the award.
“It is not clear that these increases did not augment the amount awarded by the judgment against the sureties, or that the plaintiff completed the building without undue expense to the sureties.”
This quote highlights the court's concern that the judgment might have included costs not attributable to the original contract or the sureties' obligation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued contractors and their sureties on a bond for losses due to incomplete construction. A jury was waived, and the trial judge ruled based…
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 Surety Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In an action on a contractors’ bond to recover losses resulting from a failure of the contractors to complete the construction of a building undertaken and partially performed, there was judgment for the plaintiff against the contractors, and their sureties, and writ of error was taken.
The record is voluminous and the many questions presented need not be discussed in detail. A jury was waived and the cause was decided by the trial judge upon pleadings and evidence which substantially presented appropriate issues. It is shown that changes were made in the building plans and apparently some of them were made after the contractors abandoned the contract and the sureties did not acquiesce in the changes which materially increased the cost of completing the building after the contractors defaulted. It is not clear that these increases did not augment the amount awarded by the judgment against the sureties, or that the plaintiff completed the building without undue expense to the sureties. While the sureties are liable to the full extent of their undertaking, their obligations should not be extended beyond the intent of the bond as expressed by its various terms. Liability of the sureties appears, but the amount of the judgment is apparently excessive.
Reversed for appropriate proceedings.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.