BEATRICE GUEST, JAMES H. GUEST, AND CAROLE M. GILTZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIS M. ANDERSON AND LAGO VISTA, INC., ET AL., 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that appellants were liable on a construction bond but reversed the trial court's finding that the contractor substantially performed, remanding for trial on whether the contractor complied with contract plans and specifications.
Appellants are liable on the bond, but the trial court's determination that the contractor substantially performed must be reversed and remanded for trial because the pleadings and proof raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding substantial performance.
[1] When a party mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim, the trial court shall treat the pleading as if properly designated under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1…
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 intelligenceAppellants Beatrice and James Guest appealed from orders determining liability in favor of appellees Orlando Masonry, Inc., and Daniel Carr, Inc., in …
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.110(D) cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Appellants Beatrice and James Guest appeal from orders determining liability in favor of appellees Orlando Masonry, Inc., and Daniel Carr, Inc., in an action to recover on a bond in a construction case.
As to the portion of the orders determining that appellants were liable on the bond, we find no error and affirm. However, as to the portion of the order determining that appellee Daniel Carr had substantially performed its contract, we reverse. We find that the pleadings and proof on summary judgment raised as an issue whether Carr had substantially performed in accordance with the contract plans and specifications. Therefore, we reverse and remand for trial on this issue.1
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
ORFINGER, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . Appellants raised as a counterclaim that Carr had not performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The trial judge may have been of the opinion that failure to comply with the contract was an affirmative defense rather than a counterclaim and should have been so designated by appellants. However, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d) provides that when a party has mistakenly designated a defense as a counterclaim, the court, on terms if justice so requires, shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Buttner v. Manfred W. Buttner, 484 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ibution and Its Effect on Property Acquired by Gift or Inheritance, 57 Fla.B.J. 262 (1983). Naturally, in making a division of marital assets, courts may consider the role each party played in the accumulation of those assets. Grimmett v. Grimmett, 425 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. dismissed, 307 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1975). However, the. fact that one spouse had a more active role in their acquisition because that spouse acted as the wage earner does not…
-
Romano v. Romano, 632 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…income he brought in during the marriage. In short, without the requisite showing of some extraordinary services on the part of the spouse receiving the lion’s share of the distribution, that unequal division cannot stand. See Grimmett v. Grimmett, 425 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (reversing 75%-25% split and remanding for equitable distribution where both parties shared equally in the responsibilities and benefits of the marital relationship). With regard to the $65,000 paid by the former husband in temp…
-
Tronconi v. Tronconi, 425 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…ces, however, trial judges will be required to fashion an equitable division of the marital assets based upon an examination of the actual role played by each partner and the contribution of each to the marital partnership. See Grimmett v. Grimmett, 425 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA Case No. 81-1833, opinion filed Dec. 1st, 1982) (published simultaneously with this opinion). In the case at hand we find ourselves gripped in a battle of semantics as to whether to label the Supreme Court’s adoption of this approach…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence