ALFRED J. CLOUTIER, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS EAST SIDE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR CENTER AND DONNA M. CLOUTIER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CENTRAL CONTRACTING, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Cloutier appealed a judgment awarding damages to Central Contracting in a mechanics lien foreclosure action. The court reversed, finding the jury verdict internally inconsistent—it awarded damages to Central without finding liability on any viable theory—and held that Cloutier, as the party who successfully resisted the lien claim, was entitled to attorney's fees under Florida Statutes section 713.29.
A special verdict that finds damages without finding liability does not support an award of damages. The party who successfully resists a mechanics lien claim is the prevailing party under section 713.29 and is entitled to recover attorney's fees.
[1] A jury's assessment of damages without a finding of liability is not inconsistent, but it does not support an award of damages.
[2] A party who successfully resists a claim arising from a mechanic's lien is the prevailing party for the purpose of recovering attorney's fees under section 713.29, Florid…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 jury found that Central did not perform in accordance with the contract, and it did not find Central was entitled to quantum meruit damages. Although damages for Central were assessed, the jury made no finding on contract or quantum meruit under which they could have been awarded.”
Establishes the internal inconsistency in the verdict—liability findings do not support the damage award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCentral Contracting filed a lien foreclosure suit under Chapter 713 against Cloutier, adding counts for breach of oral contract and quantum meruit dam…
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 Special Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Appellants bring a timely appeal from the lower court’s final judgment awarding damages to appellee, Central Contracting, Inc. and denying appellants’ request for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1979). Central filed a lien foreclosure suit under Chapter 713, and added counts seeking damages for breach of oral contracts and quantum meru-it damages for the value of goods or services furnished. The trial court determined that the mechanics lien was not enforceable.1 The special verdict form, as completed by the jury, read:
SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
No objection was made to the special verdict form by either party and both parties moved for judgment on the verdict. Appellants argue the trial court’s judgment is inconsistent with the special verdict, and we agree.
The jury found that Central did not perform in accordance with the contract, and it did not find Central was entitled to quantum meruit damages. Although damages for Central were assessed, the jury made no finding on contract or quantum meruit under which they could have been awarded. Appellee argues that the trial judge may correct errors inherent in the jury verdict. Cory v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 257 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1971). Central did not object to any errors below. The trial court did not expressly find an error in the jury verdict when it awarded damages to Central, and the only apparent possible error is the finding of damages without finding liability. However, a special verdict which finds damages without finding liability is not inconsistent, Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1375 (Fla.1979), and it does not support an award of damages.
Under section 713.29 of the Florida Statutes (1981), the prevailing party in an action to enforce a lien under this chapter may recover attorney’s fees. Appellants argue that a defendant prevails under this section by successfully resisting a claim arising from a mechanic’s lien,2 and we agree. Since the court found appellee’s lien was unenforceable, appellants successfully resisted the claim and prevailed below. They were entitled to recover attorney’s fees under the statute.
We reverse and remand to permit the trial court to enter a judgment consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C. J., and COBB, J., concur. . The Court had previously ruled appellants were entitled to $35.00 for negligent damage done to their building by Central Contracting,
. Allen v. Scott, 358 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Dominguez v. Benach, 277 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard A. Engle, M.D. v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006)…urance Co. v. Davis, 538 So. 2d 542, 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (concluding that “absent the jury’s finding of liability on the underlying fraud issue, there can be no valid award of punitive damages,” citing Ault); Cloutier v. Cent. Contracting, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (concluding that a verdict finding damages without finding liability cannot support the damage award). Pursuant to Ault, the jury’s finding of liability and responsibility with regard to the common core issues alone in Phas…
-
Cont'l Assurance Co. v. Benny Davis, 538 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…es without finding liability is not inconsistent (where the verdict form appears to direct the jury to find damages notwithstanding its finding of no liability), it does not thereby support an award of damages. Cloutier v. Central Contracting, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The cases relied on by Davis to the effect that the trial court simply corrected the verdict, specifically Cory v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 257 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1971) and Vigilant I…
-
Chabad House-Lubavitch OF Palm Beach Cnty., Inc. v. Vannoy Banks & Christian Banks, 602 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…, and “the intent of the jury cannot be determined” from such verdict. Spitz v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 549 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); see also Mike Henry, Inc. v. Donaldson, 558 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Cloutier v. Cloutier, 418 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We also note Lindquist v. Covert, 279 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), a case in which this court held that, where an inconsistency in the verdict was not called to the trial court’s attention until motions for new trial were file…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cory v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 257 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1971)
- Tidwell v. Toca, 362 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Preston v. State, 277 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Vicente F. Dominguez v. Bienvenido M. Benach, Jr., 277 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Allen v. Scott, 358 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)