JERRY ANDREWS, APPELLANT,
v.
R.C.C. ENTERPRISES, INC., 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 homeowner appeals a trial court order that granted summary judgment confirming an arbitration award in a dispute with a pool contractor. The appellate court affirms the summary judgment but reverses in part regarding the interpretation of the arbitration award's remedies for incomplete punch list items, holding that the homeowner is not limited to the contract balance as damages if the contractor fails to complete repairs.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment because no material fact was in dispute regarding enforcement of the arbitration award. However, the trial court erred in interpreting the award to limit the homeowner's damages to the contract balance. If the contractor fails to complete the repairs in a workmanlike manner within the specified time, the homeowner is entitled to recover damages measured by the reasonable cost of repairing the unfinished items.
[1] Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no material facts in dispute that would entitle a party to vacate an arbitration award.
[2] An arbitration award requiring a contractor to complete punch list items within a specified time, if given access, does not limit the homeowner's damages 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“We construe the arbitration award to require that Appellee complete the enumerated punch list items within the time specified, if given the opportunity to do so by Appellant. In the event of non-compliance by Appellee, the award does not, however, limit Appellant's damages to the contract balance.”
Establishes the court's interpretation that the arbitration award does not cap damages to the contract balance if the contractor fails to complete repairs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJerry Andrews hired R.C.C. Enterprises to perform pool work. A dispute arose, and the matter proceeded to arbitration. The arbitration award required …
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 Cost Of Repair cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1154] TORPY, J.
Homeowner, Jerry Andrews (Appellant), challenges an order granting summary judgment and confirming an arbitration award in a dispute with pool contractor, R.C.C. Enterprises, Inc. (Appellee). We agree that the trial court appropriately entered summary judgment because there was no material fact in dispute that would have entitled Appellant to vacate the arbitration award. We, therefore, affirm that aspect of the judgment. We reverse in part, however, because we disagree with the interpretation given to the award by the trial judge in one respect.
The trial court’s order reached four conclusions: (1) that Appellant owed Appellee $2,716.82 that was immediately due and payable; (2) that upon Appellee’s completion of the punch list items set forth in the arbitrators’ award, Appellee would be due the balance of the contract of $2,126.73; (3) that if Appellee failed to complete punch list items because Appellant refused access to the property to make the repairs, then both parties would* be excused from any further performance; and, (4) that if Appellee did not complete the punch list items for reasons other than a denial of access by Appellant, then no further performance would be due by either party. It is this fourth conclusion by the trial court that we believe constitutes error. We construe the arbitration award to require that Appellee complete the enumerated punch list items within the time specified, if given the opportunity to do so by Appellant. In the event of non-compliance by Appellee, the award does not, however, limit Appellant’s damages to the contract balance. The award simply provides that the balance of the contract is due if the work is completed. Should Ap-pellee fail to effect the repairs m a workmanlike manner within the time period prescribed, then Appellant would be entitled to present evidence to the trial court to support a money damage award, measured by the reasonable cost of repairing the items left unrepaired by Appellee.
We remand this action, therefore, with directions that the court enter an order consistent with this opinion that requires the repairs to be completed within 30 days from the date of the order.1
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur. . Based on the representations made by Appellant at oral argument, the counterclaims brought by Appellant were abandoned. Those claims may not be resurrected on remand.