E. G. LAYTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID J. KALIN, APPELLEE
Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment rendered against him in the court below after a trial without jury. The dispute between the parties arose out of the construction of an apartment complex by the appellant construction company for appellee who sued appellant for damages arising from defects in the job.
Extensive evidence was adduced before the experienced trial judge who after reconciling and considering same entered the judgment herein appealed. Our consideration of the record on appeal, briefs and oral arguments leads us to the view that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the judgment is not supported by the evidence; accordingly, the judgment appealed is
Affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Viking Cmtys. Corp. v. Peeler Constr. Co. & Star Constr. Co. of Ft. Pierce, Inc., 367 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…mined by the amount in excess of the contract price which the owner reasonably expends to complete the project. Assuming good faith substantial performance, recovery under the contract should be diminished by this amount. Melnick v. Reynolds Metals, 230 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), Bryan v. Owsley Lumber Co., 201 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). Where a contractor complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, Florida Statutes, and has substantially performed the contract, he is entitled to a mechanic’s lien.…
-
Tamarac Vill., Inc. v. Bates & Daly Co., 348 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…we hold that Tamarac’s failure to file a notice of re-commencement as required by Section 713.07(2), Florida Statutes (1973), rendered the payments Tama-rac made to complete the project also improper payments. See Melnick v. Reynolds Metals Company, 230 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), and Bill Ader, Inc. v. Maule Industries, Inc., 230 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Thus, Tamarac could not deduct the pre-notice of commencement payments of $15,315.08, nor the reasonable cost of completion, from the adjusted co…
-
J.M. Beeson Co. v. Sartori, 553 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ly $68,939.70. Thus, even if the contract had not been substantially performed, appellee would not be entitled to a judgment for the cost to complete where it was less than the contract price still outstanding. See Melnick v. Reynolds Metal Company, 230 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Bryan v. Owsley Lumber Co., 201 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence