JOHN M. BICKERSTAFF, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD B. FRAZIER AND SAARNELL G. FRAZIER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 contractor sought interlocutory review of an order granting defendants' petition for rehearing in a lien foreclosure action. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to set aside the foreclosure judgment and permit amended counterclaims, holding that an architect's certificate of completion does not estop property owners from claiming damages for alleged breaches occurring before the certificate's issuance.
The architect's certificate of completion does not estop the property owners as a matter of law from claiming damages for breach of contract, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting rehearing. The property owners waived their right to arbitration by failing to demand it within a reasonable time after the dispute arose.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a rehearing to allow a party to file an amended counterclaim for damages after a final judgment has been entered.
[2] An architect's certificate of completion does not estop a party from claiming damages for breach of contract occurring prior to the certificate's issuance.
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“the architect's certificate of completion does not estop defendants as a matter of law from claiming damages for breach of contract as sought by their proposed amended counterclaim”
Establishes the core holding that an architect's certificate is not conclusive against property owners' breach claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBickerstaff, a contractor, sued to foreclose a lien for materials and labor furnished under a construction contract with the Fraziers. The Fraziers' a…
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 Breach Of Construction Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff seeks review by interlocutory appeal of an order granting defendants’ petition for rehearing rendered subsequent to final judgment in a suit to foreclose a lien for materials and labor furnished to defendants under a construction contract. The effect of the order granting rehearing is to set aside final judgment in favor of plaintiff and to permit defendants to file an amended counterclaim for damages resulting from plaintiff’s alleged breach of the building contract.
Appellant contractor contends that appellee owners are conclusively bound by the certificate of completion issued by de*191fendants’ architect and are therefore precluded as a matter of law from seeking damages for the contractor’s alleged breach of the contract occurring prior to issuance of the certificate. Upon this premise appellant contends the trial court erred in setting aside the judgment of foreclosure and permitting appellees to file an amended counterclaim seeking damages against him. Under the facts shown by the record on appeal, we are of the view that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rendering the order on rehearing about which appellant complains, and that the architect’s certificate of completion does not estop defendants as a matter of law from claiming damages for breach of contract as sought by their proposed amended counterclaim.1
Appellees cross-assign as error the trial court’s preliminary order denying their motion for compulsory arbitration as provided by the contract entered into between the parties. The contract provides that demand for arbitration by either party must be made within a reasonable time after a dispute between them has arisen. The record reveals that appellees were put on notice as early as June 3, 1968, when their architect’s certificate of completion issued that a dispute had arisen as to the amount due plaintiff for final payment under the contract. Notice of such dispute again manifested itself on June 27, 1968, when plaintiff served and recorded his claim of lien for labor and materials furnished under the construction contract. It was not until October 23, 1968, after this suit was filed on August 13, 1968, that appellees finally demanded arbitration. The trial court held that under these facts appellees’ demand for arbitration was not made within a reasonable time after the dispute arose and, therefore, the right to arbitration had been waived. Such ruling does not appear to us to constitute an abuse of discretion under the circumstances, and the trial court’s order denying arbitration will not be held to constitute error.2
Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rolls v. Bliss & Nyitray, Inc., 408 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…v. Krathen, 368 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1979); Klosters Rederi A/S v. Arison Shipping Co., 280 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1131, 94 S.Ct. 869, 38 L.Ed.2d 755 (1974); Bickerstaff v. Frazier, 232 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 110 (Fla.1970). We find no error in the trial court’s assessment of costs against all defendants in the amount of $2,431.15, and affirm the order taxing costs. The final judgment is reversed insofar as it a…
-
The Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty. v. M.R. Harrison Constr. Corp., 415 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ndeed, this court’s own cases) holding to the contrary. We think not. We fully recognize that in Lyons v. Krathen, 368 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), we affirmed the denial of an untimely motion to compel arbitration; that in Bickerstaff v. Frazier, 232 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), upon which we relied in Lyons, the First District did the same; and that in Frank J. Rooney, Inc. v. Food Fair Industries, Inc., 254 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), we affirmed an order compelling arbitration which was timely soug…
-
Graham Contracting, Inc. v. Flagler Cnty., 444 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…hat Graham Contracting’s demand for arbitration made ten months later was not made within a reasonable period of time, relying on Lyons v. Krathen, 368 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. den., 378 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1979), and Bickerstaff v. Frazier, 232 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), cert. dismissed, 238 So. 2d 110 (Fla.1970). In Lyons v. Krathen a written demand was made on a contractor to correct certain defects. The contractor waited nine months after the demand before filing a motion to compel arbitratio…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hall v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 189 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Haskell Davidson and Harold H. Cummings v. S. S. Jacobs Co., 93 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1957)