BETTY BELL AND DEWAYNE BELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
LYLE MILLER, D/B/A LYLE MILLER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 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.
The Bells appealed a judgment in favor of contractor Lyle Miller on a breach of construction contract claim. The trial court awarded Miller $12,762 after deducting $1,150 for inspection/permits and $2,200 for late charges from the $16,112 claimed value of work performed. The appellate court affirmed the valuation of work but reversed and remanded regarding the deductions, finding the deductions lacked record support and were miscalculated.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the value of Miller's work was $16,112 but reversed regarding the deductions. The proper deduction for inspection and permit costs should be $5,135 (not $1,150), and there was no contractual basis for a $2,200 'late charge.' Instead, the Bells should receive deductions for the waived rent Miller owed for the period after work stopped (approximately $6,050 for five-and-a-half months, not $2,200 for two months).
[1] A trial court's award of damages for work performed under a construction contract will be affirmed if supported by the record.
[2] A party is entitled to a deduction for the cost of obtaining necessary permits and for penalties incurred due to working without permits.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 Bells fail to show an abuse of the court's discretion in finding that the value of the work Miller had performed was $16,112. There is no record support, however, for the amounts the court deducted therefrom.”
Establishes that while the valuation of work was upheld, the specific deduction amounts lacked evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhile Miller rented a house from the Bells in Fernandina Beach for $1,100 per month, the Bells contracted with him to renovate it with rent waived dur…
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 Late Charges cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Betty and Dewayne Bell, appeal a final judgment entered against them in a suit alleging breach of a construction contract brought by appellee, Lyle Miller, d/b/a/ Lyle Miller Construction Company. The Bells contend that the trial court failed to deduct certain costs and penalties from the amount it awarded appellee, and did not take certain uncompleted work into account. We affirm in part and reverse in part, concluding that the record shows that the Bells are entitled to additional deductions.
While Miller was renting a house from the Bells in Fernandina Beach for $1,100 per month, the Bells contracted with him to perform certain renovations to the house, agreeing that they would waive the rent during the time the work was performed. Miller did not complete the renovation and moved out in February 2001, and thereafter filed a claim of lien, seeking $16,112 for work performed between December 2, 2000, and April 7, 2001. The trial court directed the Bells to pay Miller the $16,112, less $1,150 for inspection work and permits, and $2,200 for two months’ late charges at $1,100 per month, for a total award of $12,762. The Bells fail to show an abuse of the court’s discretion in finding that the value of the work Miller had performed was $16,112. There is no record support, however, for the amounts the court deducted therefrom.
Miller admitted that the court should deduct $255 for permits he had failed to obtain, and that the city would double this amount because he had worked without the permits, resulting in a total of $510. Miller also admitted that the court should deduct the cost of removing sheetrock and concrete in order to obtain a plumbing inspection. He testified that it would cost $125 to remove and reinstall the sheetrock, and $4,500 to remove and repour the concrete. The costs, therefore, of inspections and permits is $5,135, rather than $1,150.
The lower court also found that Miller owed a two-month late charge of $2,200 or $1,100 per month, because the contract called for construction to be completed 150 days after permitting, and the court concluded that at the time of trial on September 24, 2001, the project was late by two months. There is nothing, however, in the parties’ agreement imposing a “late charge” if the renovations were not completed within the specified time. Presumably, the figure of $1,100 represents the monthly rent that Miller testified the Bells waived during the time he continued work on the house. He stated in his claim of lien that the $16,112 represented work performed between December 2, 2000, and April 7, 2001. If Miller stopped work on April 7, 2001, he would owe the Bells $6,050 for five-and-a-half months’ rent between April 7, 2001, and September 24, 2001, when he admitted that he remained legally in possession of the house, rather than $2,200 for two months.
We reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to reconsider and recalculate the damages.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.