IRWIN STANLEY BROOKS A/K/A I. STANLEY BROOKS, A/K/A STANLEY BROOKS, AND HARRIET K. BROOKS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DICK HOLSOMBACH, 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.
A builder sued a homeowner for the balance due on a custom residence construction contract after the builder quit when the project was 80% complete. The jury verdict favored the builder, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the builder's damages calculation based on percentage of completion was improper under Florida law.
The proper measure of damages for breach of a construction contract is either quantum meruit or the contractor's lost profit together with the reasonable cost of labor and materials incurred in good faith during partial performance. The percentage of completion method is not the proper measure of damages, and the jury verdict based solely on this method must be reversed.
[1] Damages for breach of a construction contract are measured by quantum meruit or the contractor's lost profit plus the reasonable cost of labor and materials incurred in g…
[2] A jury verdict based solely on a percentage of completion calculation is insufficient to prove damages for breach of a construction contract.
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 true measure of damages is either quantum me-ruit or the contractor's lost profit together with the reasonable cost of labor and materials incurred in good faith in the course of partial performance of the contract”
States the correct legal standard for calculating damages in construction contract breaches
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring construction of a custom residence, disagreements arose between the owner (Brooks) and builder (Holsombach). When the job reached approximately…
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 Breach Of Construction Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
Before us is a controversy between a builder and a homeowner over a final invoice, for approximately $27,000, submitted by the builder after he quit during the construction of a custom residence. The jury verdict was in favor of the builder, but we reverse the final judgment predicated on that verdict.
There are a myriad of facts and circumstances which have played a part in this long drawn out struggle already involving two trials. However, we only explicate those which in our view dictate the result.
Many disagreements arose between the owner and the builder and when the job was 80% complete, according to the institutional pay out schedule, there came a parting of the ways. At this juncture the builder’s final invoice was, based on the “balance due on 80% draw,” or in other words on the percentage of completion. The owner argues that percentage of completion is not the proper method to prove damages for breach of a construction contract. We agree and echo a former decision of this court to the effect that the true measure of damages is either quantum me-ruit or the contractor’s lost profit together with the reasonable cost of labor and materials incurred in good faith in the course of partial performance of the contract. Diversified Commercial Developers, Inc. v. Formrite, Inc., 450 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Accel, Inc., 354 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
The builder argues that the figures presented at trial do in fact represent the formula stated in the above cited cases, but we can find no basis in the record to support this argument. To the contrary, the jury verdict was to the penny precisely the figure requested in the builder’s final invoice which was based on the percentage of completion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
There can be no doubt but that the attorney’s fees involved in this controversy must have long since eclipsed the amount at issue. We hope this sad truth will prevent a third go around. In that same vein, both sides seek attorneys fees for this appeal based on the mechanics’ lien statute. We elect to postpone any such award pending the final outcome of this controversy. ANSTEAD, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr. (Retired), Associate Judge, concur. ORDER ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
In view of the attendant circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the question of damages and liability are inseparable.
Accordingly, this cause should be retried on all issues previously presented in the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Teca, Inc. v. Wm-Tab, Inc., 726 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…contract was “either quantum meruit or the contractor’s lost profit together with the reasonable cost of labor and materials incurred in good faith in the course of partial performance of the contract.” See id. at 1252 (citing Brooks v. Holsombach, 525 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). The subcontractor’s damages testimony at trial was based on the percentage of work completed, an incorrect measure of damages. Id. at 1252. Finding no evidence addressing the proper measure of damages, this court reversed…
-
Marshall Constr., Ltd. v. Coastal Sheet Metal & Roofing, Inc., 569 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…y for a prudent impartial person to determine whether Coastal would have earned any profit. Evidence based upon a percentage of work completed and work yet to be performed is legally insufficient to support a damages award. See Brooks v. Holsombach, 525 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). It is a well-settled contract principle that unexpected difficulty, expense, or hardship does not excuse a party from performance of its obligations under a contract. See Bumby & Stimpson, v. Peninsula Utilities Corp., 169 So.…
-
Nico Indus., Inc. v. Steel Form Contractors, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…performed construction contract is, “either quantum me-ruit or the contractor’s lost profit together with the reasonable cost of labor and materials incurred in good faith in the course of partial performance of the contract.” Brooks v. Holsombach, 525 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA1988). See also, Marshall Construction, Ltd. v. Coastal Sheet Metal & Roofing, Inc., 569 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA1990). The sub presented the testimony of two of its officers; however, their testimony was based on the percentage o…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Diversified Commercial Developers, Inc. v. Formrite, Inc., 450 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md. v. Accel, Inc., 354 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)