TIMOTHY BUSCH, APPELLANT,
v.
LENNAR HOMES, LLC, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2017-04-13
No. Case No. 5D16-1626
ORFINGER, J., and WEISS, K, Associate Judge, concur.
219 So. 3d 93 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2017) Negative Treatment
Cited by 11 cases

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.

Synopsis

A homeowner appealed the dismissal of his construction defect complaint based on Florida's ten-year statute of repose. The court reversed, holding that the complaint's allegations did not conclusively establish the construction contract was completed at closing, so the statute of repose had not necessarily expired when the suit was filed.


Holding

The court reversed the dismissal because the complaint did not conclusively establish that the contract was completed at closing. The contract expressly contemplated that closing could occur even if work remained incomplete, and the complaint did not allege that no work was completed after closing, so the statute of repose had not necessarily begun to run.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court must treat all well-pleaded allegations in a complaint as true when ruling on a motion to dismiss.

[2] A plaintiff is not required to anticipate affirmative defenses, such as the statute of repose, with specific allegations in the complaint to survive a motion to dismiss.

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

Key Quotes

“A contract is not complete until "both sides of the contract" have been performed.”

Establishes the legal standard for when a construction contract is considered complete for statute of repose purposes.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Timothy Busch purchased a home from Lennar Homes under a contract requiring the builder to correct defective items before or within a reasonable time …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PALMER, J.

PALMER, J.

Timothy Busch (Homeowner) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint with prejudice based on the expiration of the ten-year statute of repose applicable to construction defect claims. See § 95.11(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015). Because the complaint does: not conclusively establish that the statute of repose had expired prior to the, filing of Homeowner’s complaint, we reverse. :

When ruling on a motion to dismiss a complaint, the trial court must look no further than the complaint and its attachments and must treat as true all of the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations. Morin v. Florida Power & Light Co., 963 So.2d 258, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). A trial court’s determination to dismiss -a complaint, based on a matter of law, is subject to de novo review. Saltponds Condo. Ass’n v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 979 So.2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Thus, when considering a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint on the basis of the statute of repose, the appellate court’s focus is on whether the factual allegations set forth in the complaint and its attachments establish that the claims for relief therein are time barred. Ambrose v. Catholic Soc. Serv., Inc., 736 So.2d 146, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Of importance, a plaintiff is not required to anticipate affirmative defenses, including the statute of repose, with" specific allegations in the complaint in order to survive a dismissal motion. Williams v. City of Jacksonville, 191 So.3d 925, 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

Pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement (the contract)' between Homeowner and Lennar Homes (Builder), Homeowner agreed to pay Builder for the construction of a home. Nearly ten years after closing on the home, Homeowner served a Chapter 558 notice on Builder concerning several alleged construction defects.1 A short time later, but more than ten years after closing, Homeowner filed a complaint alleging multiple construction *95defects attributable to Builder. Relying on section 95.11(3)(c), Florida’s statute of repose, Builder filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. This statute provides:

9S.11 Actions other, than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows:
(3) Within four years.—
(c) An action founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property, with the time running from the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction 'if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest; except that, when the action involves a latent defect, the time runs from the time the defect is discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. In any event, the action must be commenced within 10 years after the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest.

§ 95,ll(3)(c) (emphasis added). In seeking dismissal, Builder argued that the parties’ contract was completed at closing and, thus, the statute of repose barred Homeowner’s action because the complaint was filed more than ten years after closing.

After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted Builder’s motion and dismissed the complaint. Homeowner challenges this ruling, arguing that-, the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint because it did not conclusively establish .that the contract was completed at closing. We agree.

A contract is not complete until “both sides of the contract” have been performed. Cypress Fairway Condo. v. Bergeron Const. Co., 164 So.3d 706 (Fla. 6th DCA 2016). Here, the contract, which was attached to the complaint, provided:

10. Inspection Prior to Closing
10.1 Purchaser shall be given an opportunity to examine the Home with Seller’s representative prior to closing of title on a date and time scheduled by Seller. At that time, if any items are noted, Purchaser shall present to Seller an inspection statement signed by Purchaser, if any items noted are actually defective in workmanship or materials in Seller’s opinion in accordance with construction standards prevalent for a similar home in the county where the community is located, Seller will be obligated to correct those items at Seller’s cost. A second inspection of the home will be conducted prior to closing at which time the Purchaser will be given an opportunity to examine the home with Seller’s representative to acknowledge that items listed on- the inspection statement prepared after the first inspection have been corrected. Any remaining items that Seller has agreed to correct will be corrected by Seller at Seller’s sole cost and expense prior to closing or at Seller’s option within a reasonable time after closing.

Because the contract expressly contemplated that closing could occur even- if work required by the contract remained incomplete, and the complaint did not allege that no work was completed after *96closing, the allegations of the complaint do not conclusively establish that the contract was completed upon closing. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. See Allan & Conrad, Inc. v. Univ. of Cent. Florida, 961 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Clearwater Hous. Auth. v. Future Capital Holding Corp., 126 So.3d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).2

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, J., and WEISS, K, Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Enlow v. E.C. Scott Wright, P.A., 274 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
    …side the four corners of the complaint. We agree and reverse. When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court is strictly confined to the allegations contained within the four corners of the complaint and its attachments. Busch v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 219 So. 3d 93, 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing Morin v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 963 So. 2d 258, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). The court must assume that the well- pleaded allegations in the complaint are true, and it must afford the plaintiff the benefit of all reason…
  • Garofalo v. Proskauer Rose, LLP, 253 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
  • Gindel v. Centex Homes, 267 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
    …t's suit being forever barred by the associated statute of repose." Id. at 952. We find the same to be true in the construction context. In the order on appeal, the trial court extensively cited to a singular footnote in Busch v. Lennar Homes, LLC , 219 So.3d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), for support as to why Florida courts cannot apply Parham to a construction case. In this singular footnote, the Busch court stated that in the construction context, there is no infringement upon a construction defect claimant's…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw