CAMPAGNA CONSTRUCTION CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND ITALO CAMPAGNA, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
RIVERVIEW CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1985-04-23
No. 84-1787
Before HENDRY, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
467 So. 2d 807 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1985) Negative Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Campagna Construction and its owner appealed a default judgment and damages award entered against them in a construction defect case involving a condominium complex. The appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error in the trial court's striking of pleadings, default entry, or damages calculation.


Holding

The appellate court affirmed the judgment in all respects, finding all six contentions totally without merit and demonstrating no reversible error.


Headnotes

[1] A default judgment may be entered against a party for continued and willful violations of court orders regarding discovery proceedings.

[2] A party against whom a default judgment has been entered is not entitled to notice or an opportunity to be heard on the issue of liability.

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

Key Quotes

“The liability of appellants was established by the Circuit Court for Dade County pursuant to its order striking the pleadings of the appellants and entering a default against them for the continued and willful violations of orders of the court regarding discovery proceedings.”

Establishes the basis for liability—default entry due to discovery violations rather than adjudication on the merits.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Campagna Construction Co. and Italo Campagna were sued by Riverview Condominium Corp. for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of warranty in co…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*808] PER CURIAM.

The appellants, Campagna Construction Co. and Italo Campagna, appeal from an adverse final judgment entered in an action against them by appellee Riverview Condominium Corp. for breach of contract, negligence and breach of warranty in connection with the construction and sale of appellee’s condominium apartments.

The liability of appellants was established by the Circuit Court for Dade County pursuant to its order striking the pleadings of the appellants and entering a default against them for the continued and willful violations of orders of the court regarding discovery proceedings.

The circuit court, in a non-jury trial on the issue of damages, found that the evidence established that the reasonable cost of repair and/or replacement of the defective or omitted components of the building which were the subject of the lawsuit totalled $229,241.41, and entered judgment against appellants for that amount.

Appellants contend that the trial court erred in the entry of its judgment because: (1) appellants were not given adequate notice or opportunity to be heard, (2) the court allowed a trial to be held to ascertain an amount of unliquidated damages, (3) the evidence did not support the amount determined in the final judgment, (4) the court failed to recognize appellee’s failure to mitigate damages, (5) the court found damages which were not probable, proximate or natural results of appellants’ actions, and (6) the court found damages which were speculative.

We have carefully considered appellants’ contentions in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have found them to be totally without merit. Therefore, finding that no reversible error has been demonstrated, we affirm the judgment appealed.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Pilkington PLC v. Metro Corp., 526 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
    …dismissal). Cf. Freeman v. Humana, Inc., 501 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (where party failed to comply with four discovery orders dismissal warranted), review denied, 511 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1987); Campagna Constr. Co. v. Riverview Condominium Corp., 467 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“continued and willful” violations support order striking pleadings). Furthermore, petitioners’ arguably inadequate answers could have been remedied by amendment. See Maxwell; Summit Chase Condominium Ass’n v. Protean Investors,…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw