GRAY CONSTRUCTION & ASSOCIATES, INC.
v.
RAMESH AIRAN, ET AL.
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 trial court's judgment finding no breach of contract is affirmed because the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence supporting a breach.
[1] On appellate review of a judgment rendered after a bench trial, the appellate court must ensure that the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent, substa…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGray Construction brought a counterclaim against Ramesh Airan and Aruna Airan. After a bench trial, the trial court found that Gray Construction did n…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 21, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0692 Lower Tribunal No. 19-22415-CA-01 ________________
Gray Construction & Associates, Inc., Appellant,
vs.
Ramesh Airan, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.
Sanchez-Medina, Gonzalez, Quesada, Lage, Gomez & Machado, LLP and Gustavo D. Lage; and The Temple Law Firm, PLLC and Craig H. Temple (Jupiter), for appellant.
Belaval Law, PLLC and Edgar R. Belaval, for appellees, Ramesh Airan and Aruna Airan.
Before SCALES, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
After a bench trial on its counterclaim, Appellant Gray Construction & Associates, Inc. appeals the final judgment finding that it did not prove breach of contract. We affirm as the record does not establish that the Appellees breached the contract. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox, 243 So. 3d 1017, 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“We review a judgment rendered after a bench trial to ensure that the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence.”); Underwater Eng’g Servs., Inc. v. Util. Bd. of City of Key W., 194 So. 3d 437, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Even if a trial court’s judgment is insufficient in its findings of fact, the judgment should be affirmed if the record as a whole discloses any reasonable basis, reason or ground on which the judgment can be supported.”) (internal quotations omitted). Accord Garcia v. Carter Const. Co., 794 So. 2d 723, 724 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“Where . . . the trial court makes no findings of fact, the appellate court must determine whether, based on the record, the proper analysis would have produced the result reached by the trial court.”) (internal quotations omitted).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Underwater Eng'g Servs., Inc. v. Util. Bd. OF the City OF KEY W., 194 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Bowden v. State, 794 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)