SOUTHPOINT SHORE MANAGEMENT LLC
v.
HOMEXPO MIAMI CORP.
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.
Southpoint Shore Management hired unlicensed contractor Homexpo to install marble, which Homexpo rejected after defects appeared. The trial court initially granted summary judgment preventing Homexpo from asserting contractual defenses based on Florida's unlicensed contractor statute, but then reversed course and allowed Homexpo to present those defenses at trial, resulting in a jury verdict for Homexpo. The appellate court reversed, holding that unlicensed contractors cannot assert contractual defenses as a matter of public policy.
The trial court erred when it permitted Homexpo, an unlicensed contractor, to present defenses based on contract provisions that it could not legally enforce under Florida Statute section 489.128. As a matter of public policy, unlicensed contractors have no rights or remedies for enforcement of contracts and therefore cannot assert contractual defenses.
[1] Contracts entered into by an unlicensed contractor are unenforceable by the unlicensed contractor as a matter of public policy.
[2] An unlicensed contractor cannot assert contractual defenses when sued by a party to the 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“As a matter of public policy, contracts entered into on or after October 1, 1990, by an unlicensed contractor shall be unenforceable in law or in equity by the unlicensed contractor.”
The statutory basis for prohibiting unlicensed contractors from enforcing contracts or asserting contractual defenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2017, Southpoint hired Homexpo, an unlicensed contractor, to soundproof and level floors and install Greek AAA Grade White Polished Thassos marble …
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 Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 16, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D23-0441, 3D23-2208 Lower Tribunal No. 20-17937 ________________
Southpoint Shore Management LLC, Appellant,
vs.
Homexpo Miami Corp., Appellee.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Jennifer D. Bailey, and Lourdes Simon, Judges.
Mamone Villalon, Tyler A. Mamone, Rachel E. Walker, and Yetian Wang, for appellant.
Law Offices of Jason Gordon, P.A., and Jason Gordon (Hollywood), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Southpoint Shore Management LLC (“Southpoint”) appeals an adverse jury verdict in favor of Homexpo Miami Corp. (“Homexpo”) and the trial court’s subsequent order denying Southpoint’s motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Because the trial court misapplied section 489.128, Florida Statutes, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I.
In 2017, Southpoint hired Homexpo to soundproof and level the floors at its South Beach property, and to obtain and install Greek AAA Grade, White, Polished Thassos marble therein.1 Relevant here, Homexpo was an unlicensed contractor that did not perform any work on Southpoint’s property. Instead, the work at Southpoint’s property was performed by thirdparty licensed contractors that were hired by Homexpo. The first shipment of marble arrived in 2018, but it stayed in a warehouse for seven months because Southpoint’s property was experiencing construction delays. It was eventually delivered to Southpoint’s property. Months later, Southpoint rejected the first delivery due to defects in the marble and Homexpo agreed to remove and replace it. The second
2 For reasons that remain unclear, some of the marble was installed at Southpoint’s property.
Despite this discussion, Homexpo referenced defenses based on the contract during opening statement. Counsel for Homexpo stated: Paragraph6 states, in part, "It is understood and agreed that Homexpo Miami shall not be held responsible for any and all damages and/or claims resulting from natural variations to the products. Marble products, due to their brittle and porous nature are subject to chipping and splitting. And Homexpo Miami shall not be responsible for such events." . . . I ask that you pay attention to paragraph number7 of the terms and conditions, which states, “It is agreed that the buyer or its agent has been afforded the opportunity to inspect the goods prior to installation and following such inspection shall be deemed to have accepted the goods in their totality and natural variations contained therein."
After the three-day jury trial, a verdict was entered in favor of Homexpo on each of Southpoint’s claims.
On appeal, Southpoint argues that the trial court erred when it denied Southpoint’s motion in limine which sought to preclude Homexpo from asserting any contractual defenses at trial.
II.
“Generally, rulings on motions in limine are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Bellevue v. Frenchy’s S. Beach Cafe, Inc., 136 So. 3d 640, 642-
III.
The Florida Legislature “deem[ed] it necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to regulate the construction industry.” Incident365 Florida, LLC v. Ocean Pointe V Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2004 (Fla. 3d DCA, 2024); see § 489.101, Fla. Stat. “[T]he Legislature has, as a matter of state policy, greatly disadvantaged the contractor who chooses not to obtain the legally required license.” Earth Trades, Inc. v. T & G Corp, 108 So. 3d 580, 586-87 (Fla. 2013). “Under the amended section 489.128, the unlicensed contractor has no rights or remedies for the enforcement of the contract.” Id. at 586.3 In applying Chapter 489, we have held that unlicensed contractors such as Homexpo cannot assert contractual defenses. See John Hancock- Gannon Joint Venture IT v. McNully, 800 So. 2d 294, 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
3 Despite hiring third parties to install the marble, Chapter 489 still applies to Homexpo. See § 489.105, Fla. Stat. (providing that ‘contractor’ is defined as “the person who, for compensation, undertakes to, submits a bid to, or does himself or herself or by others construct, repair, alter, remodel, or improve any building or structure. . .”) (emphasis added).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Earth Trades, Inc. v. T & G Corp., 108 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 2013)
- John Hancock-Gannon Joint Venture II v. McNULLY, 800 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Bellevue v. Frenchy's S. Beach CAFÉ, Inc., 136 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)