SOL-A-TROL ALUMINUM

v.

GENERAL IMPACT GLASS & WINDOWS CORP

WALSH, J.

Sol-a-Trol Aluminum Products, Inc. (“Sol-a-Trol”) was hired by a general contractor to supply and install windows as part of a construction Filing # 110920483 E-Filed 07/28/2020 03:32:17

This appeal turns upon correct application of the standard of review. [*3] The standard of review of a judgment entered after a bench trial is succinctly stated in Negron v. Resolution Life Holdings, Inc., 271 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019): On appeal of a judgment entered after a bench trial, while the parties are entitled to de novo review of the trial court's legal rulings, an appellate court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact where the findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Tylinski v. Klein Auto., Inc., 90 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing Craigside, LLC v. GDC View, LLC, 74 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)). Furthermore, in an appeal from a bench trial, “the trial judge's findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous.” Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So. 2d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

The question on appeal, therefore, is whether there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s findings. If there is such evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s rejection of the affirmative defense, we must affirm. The trial judge’s findings are presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless “clearly erroneous.” Id. Sol-a-Trol bases its affirmative defense of set-off upon two theories – first, that General Impact failed to timely deliver the windows, and second, that the windows were damaged in production, and that its repair of the windows caused undisputed damages which Sol-a-Trol was entitled to set off against the unpaid invoice. In response, General Impact argued that any delay in production or delivery was caused by Sol-a-Trol and that the windows were [*4] either not defective or faulty installation caused any alleged leaks. The trial court ultimately agreed with General Impact and rejected the defense of setoff. Examining the record here, we find that the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and were supported by competent substantial evidence. First, there was no requirement in the purchase order that the windows be delivered within a particular time frame. But even if there were a delivery time required, there was evidence that Sol-a-Trol, not General Impact, delayed production and delivery of the windows. Sol-a-Trol insisted that General Impact use Sol-a-Trol’s painting vendor to paint the windows. Sol-a-Trol’s painting vendor damaged the windows by bending the frames and causing holes. As a result of the vendor’s damage, General Impact had to remake the windows (at its own expense) and submit them again to the painter. Thus, Sol-a-Trol, in insisting that General Impact use its painting vendor, caused any delay. Additionally, when the windows were ready, Sol-a-Trol refused to pick them up until after the Christmas holidays. Accordingly, the trial court relied upon competent evidence in concluding that General Impact did not cause any delay. Second, competent evidence supported the trial court’s rejection of the set-off defense on the ground that General Impact did not fabricate leaky [*5] windows. As a threshold matter, the trial court could have rejected outright Sol-a-Trol’s assertion that the windows were defective. Sol-a-Trol did not raise any issue concerning leaky windows until almost 50 days after delivery and installation, after General Impact demanded payment on the delinquent amounts. The trial court could have, therefore, rejected the claim of set-off on the ground that Sol-a-Trol had motive to invent a “defect” to avoid payment. Even if the windows were leaky, Sol-a-Trol refused to subject them to a lab test. The principal of General Impact, Mr. Zuniga, testified that the windows were not defective when Sol-a-Trol retrieved them. Because Zuniga witnessed the windows’ condition at delivery, the trial judge could rely on Zuniga’s testimony and the inference that any leaks were caused by faulty installation and not faulty manufacture. See Marrone v. Miami Nat. Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (appellate court will not disturb trial court’s findings in a bench trial “which are presumed correct, unless they are totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence”). Therefore, the judgment rejecting the affirmative defense of set-off is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and may not be disturbed on appeal. We affirm. TRAWICK AND R. ARECES, JJ. CONCUR. COPIES PROVIDED TO ALL PARTIES