ANDREW STEIN, ET AL.
v.
FAVA DESIGN GROUP, LLC
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.
The Steins appealed a breach of contract judgment in favor of Fava Design Group, an interior design firm, arguing that Fava Design was an unlicensed contractor and therefore the contract was unenforceable. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding competent substantial evidence supported the findings that the Steins breached the agreement and that Fava Design did not act as an unlicensed contractor.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that competent substantial evidence in the record supports the finding that the Steins breached their agreement with Fava Design and that Fava Design did not act as an unlicensed contractor.
“We review a judgment rendered after a bench trial to ensure that the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence.”
Establishes the standard of appellate review for bench trial judgments and the requirement that findings be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Steins hired Fava Design Group, an interior design firm, for a remodeling project of their residence. A dispute arose regarding the scope and pric…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants (Defendants below) Andrew and Wendy Stein appeal a final judgment finding them in breach of contract against Appellee (Plaintiff below) Fava Design, LLC, an interior design firm. The dispute arises from a remodeling project of the Steins’ residence.
On appeal, the Steins argue that Fava Design acted as an unlicensed contractor, and, as a result, all contracts are unenforceable. They further argue that even if the contracts were enforceable, the trial court reversibly erred in finding they had reached an agreement with Fava Design about the scope and price of its services.
We affirm because competent substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court’s finding, after a two-day bench trial, that the Steins breached their agreement with Fava Design and that Fava Design did not act as an unlicensed contractor. See Sg 2901, LLC v. Complimenti, Inc., 323 So. 3d 804, 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“We review a judgment rendered after a bench trial to ensure that the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence.” (quoting Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox, 243 So. 3d 1017, 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018))).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haas Automation, Inc. v. FOX, 243 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Gonzalo Lopez-Jordan v. Araguaney Ltd., 323 So. 3d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)