DYNAMIC BUILDERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD TULL & HELYN TULL, HIS WIFE, 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.
Dynamic Builders appeals from a judgment awarding damages to property owners for defective construction work, with the owners cross-appealing. The court affirmed the damages award but reversed the denial of attorney's fees to the builder as the prevailing party on its mechanic's lien foreclosure counterclaim.
The trial court properly awarded damages to the owners based on competent substantial evidence supporting the judge's findings. However, the trial court erred in denying the builder attorney's fees under Florida Statutes Section 713.29, as the builder was the prevailing party on its mechanic's lien counterclaim.
[1] A trial court's findings of fact will be affirmed on appeal if supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] A party who prevails on a counterclaim for foreclosure of a mechanic's lien is entitled to an award of attorney's fees, even if the award is less than the amount claimed.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial judge determined that appellees were entitled to be reimbursed for damages alleged in their complaint to have been incurred by virtue of repairs to their property necessitated by appellant's faulty construction”
Establishes the trial court's finding on the merits awarding damages to the property owners.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDynamic Builders performed construction work on a motel owned by the Tulls. Disputes arose over the quality of workmanship and responsibility for alle…
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
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant/defendant appeals from an “amended final judgment” and post-judgment “order on all pending motions,” while appellees/plaintiffs have cross-appealed from that same judgment and order. This litigation centered around a dispute over construction work performed by appellant on a motel owned by appellees. Testimony was disputed over the quality of workmanship and responsibility for alleged defects in the workmanship. Ultimately, the trial judge determined that appellees were entitled to be reimbursed for damages alleged in their complaint to have been incurred by virtue of repairs to their property necessitated by appellant’s faulty construction. Further, the trial judge ruled that such damages should be deducted from the balance of the contract price still due and owing appellant, which was the subject of a counterclaim filed by appellant for foreclosure of its mechanic lien.
We have carefully reviewed all points raised in the appeal and cross-appeal, in light of the record on appeal, and have determined that none of the challenges raised by either appellant or appellees warrant our disturbance of the “amended final judgment,” as there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s findings. However, pursuant to Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1977), the trial court erred in denying appellant an award of attorney’s fees in its “order on all pending motions.” The record demonstrates that appellant was the prevailing party on its counterclaim for foreclosure of its mechanics lien, notwithstanding the fact that the trial judge awarded appellant a figure somewhat less than the amount indicated in its “claim of lien.” See Flagala Corporation v. Hamm, 302 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Foxbilt Electric, Inc. v. Belefant, 280 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
Accordingly, the “amended final judgment” is hereby affirmed, while that portion of the “order on all pending motions” which denies appellant attorney’s fees is reversed and remanded with directions to enter an award of attorney’s fees in favor of appellant. Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded with directions in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. C. M. Assocs., Inc. v. Rhodes, 395 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…nd appeal, to be determined by the court, which shall be taxed as part of his costs, as allowed in equitable actions. Relying upon the fact that it recovered $3,280.40, S.C.M. claims that it was the prevailing party. Dynamic Builders, Inc. v. Tull, 365 So. 2d 1032 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). In response, Rhodes initially argues that by virtue of the wording of the final judgment, S.C.M. did not recover on its mechanic’s lien; therefore, it cannot come within the provisions of the statute. This is nothing more than sem…
-
Plaza Builders, Inc. v. Regis, 502 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Snaidman v. Harrell, 432 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Saleh v. Watkins, 415 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Sanfilippo v. Larry Giacin Tile Co., Inc., 390 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Dynamic Builders, Inc. v. Tull, 365 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Falovitch v. Gunn & Gunn Construction Co., 348 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Say Service, Snaidman, Sa-leh, Sanfilippo, and Falovitch solely involved the mechanic’s lien issue. Dynamic, while concerning both a breach of contract…
-
Am. Insulation OF Fort Walton Beach, Inc. v. Pruitt, 378 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ntract, appellants would not have been the prevailing party and would not have been entitled to the award of an attorney’s fee. See also Peter Marich and Associates, Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Dynamic Builders, Inc. v. Tull, 365 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Foxbilt Electric, Inc. v. Belefant, 280 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The record does not reflect, nor does appellee claim, that at any time he tendered an amount he agreed was owing. Flagala Corporation, supra; Peter Marich and…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Flagala Corp. v. Hamm, 302 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Foxbilt Elec., Inc. v. Belefant, 280 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)