KENNETH B. ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
J. MARCUS PINSKER, 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.
Kenneth Robinson appeals a trial court judgment awarding J. Marcus Pinsker $3,000 plus costs and attorney's fees for architectural services rendered on a church building project. The dispute centers on whether the parties contracted for preliminary plans only ($350) or for complete architectural services including working drawings ($3,000-$6,000).
The trial court properly found that the parties entered into a contract for plaintiff to provide architectural services including preparation of engineering and working drawings, and that a reasonable fee for such services was $3,000. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial competent evidence supported the trial judge's findings and determination of reasonable value.
[1] An appellate court will not reverse a trial judge's findings of fact in a non-jury trial unless the findings are clearly erroneous.
[2] Where the terms of an oral contract are disputed, the trial court may determine the reasonable value of services rendered.
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“Where a trial judge hears a cause without a jury as in the case sub judice, it is his duty to reconcile the conflicting evidence and the appellate court is not authorized to reverse unless his findings are clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for bench trial findings on appeal—clearly erroneous standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn spring 1971, Robinson entered a tentative agreement with Metropolitan Community Church to lease his property and build a church complex, contingent…
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 Fraudulent Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant appeals a final judgment in favor of the appellant for the total sum of $3,000 plus costs and attorney’s fees.
In the spring of 1971, defendant-appellant, Kenneth B.
Robinson, entered into a tentative agreement with the Metropolitan Community Church whereby the church agreed to take a lease option on defendant’s property and defendant would build thereon a church, sanctuary, and social hall, the construction of which would be funded by the church’s congregation.
This agreement was contingent upon securing zoning approval for the project.
Thereupon, defendant-appellant in June 1971 entered into an agreement1 with the plaintiff-appellee, J.
Marcus Pinsker, a licensed practicing architect, for his services.
Plaintiff drew up the necessary preliminary plans for submission to the Dade County Zoning Appeals Board to secure a variance for the building of the church complex.
As agreed, plaintiff received $350 as his fee for this phase of the work.
The application for zoning variance containing the preliminary plans was submitted to the county on July 28, 1971.
However, the application was returned on October 7, 1971 because the preliminary plans were based upon incorrect calculations.
Plaintiff corrected the figures and refiled the application.
Before the application could be heard, the Metropolitan Community Church cancelled its agreement and defendant-appellant withdrew the application.
However, prior to the cancellation by the church, plaintiff tendered to the defendant the completed plans.
In December 1971, plaintiff had sent defendant a statement reflecting his total architectural fee as $6,000 with a balance due and owing of $5,690.2 On February 4, 1972, plaintiff caused a lien to be filed for architectural services from July 24, 1971 through November 20, 1971.
Thereafter, plaintiff filed his complaint to enforce an architect’s lien and for breach of contract, and alleged therein that defendant orally had contracted his services for a total agreed sum of $6,000.
Defendant answered alleging that he engaged the professional services of the plaintiff to prepare only the preliminary plans for an agreed price of $350 which he paid and that should the zoning variance be secured, then defendant would pay plaintiff $6,000 for preparation of the completed plans.
Defendant also filed a counterclaim alleging the claim of lien was fraudulent and in addition, due to plaintiff’s careless preparation of the preliminary plans and resulting delay, the Metropolitan Community Church lost confidence and cancelled out.
The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial after which the trial judge found in favor of the plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaim and entered final judgment and final judgment of foreclosure in the amount of $3,000 plus costs and attorney’s fees in favor of the plaintiff.
Defendant appeals therefrom.
Defendant-appellant basically contends that the trial court committed error in finding that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract for plaintiff to provide architectural services to the defendant including the preparation of engineering and working drawings and that a reasonable fee therefor was $3,000.
Where a trial judge hears a cause without a jury as in the case sub ju-dice, it is his duty to reconcile the conflicting evidence and the appellate court is not authorized to reverse unless his findings are clearly erroneous.
See 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 346 (1963) and cases cited therein.
After a careful scrutiny of the record on appeal, we find there was substantial competent evidence contained therein to support the finding of the trial judge that plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby plaintiff was to provide architectural services including the preparation of engineering and working drawings and that plaintiff, in fact, did provide such services.
Further, the subject oral contract having fixed no definite sum as compensation, it was within the province of the trial judge to determine the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services.
See 7 Fla. Jur. Contracts § 117 (1956).
There being competent substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s award of $3,000 as being the reasonable value of the services rendered by the plaintiff, we will not disturb this determination on appeal.
We also considered the point raised on cross-appeal by plaintiff-appellee and find it to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed. .
The exact terms of which are the subject of this lawsuit. .
Architectural Fee $6,000.00 Photos & Brochure 40.00 $6,040.00 Payment 8/31/71 350.00 $5,690.00
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulf Solar, Inc. v. Westfall, 447 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…the agreement. That being the situation, the employment contract will not fail to bind the parties despite appellants’ protestations to the contrary. The trial court properly could and did resolve the compensation question. See Robinson v. Pinsker, 303 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Holm v. Woodworth, 271 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Concerning the denial of appellants’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court acted properly as, under the situation presented here, the statute of frauds is not a bar t…
-
Cmty. Design Corp. v. Antonell, 459 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…iate for the jury to [*346] resolve the compensation question, Gulf Solar, Inc. v. Westfall, 447 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and the amount awarded is reasonable based on Antonell’s efforts in completing the drawings. Cf Robinson v. Pinsker, 303 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). CDC’s second argument is that An-tonell did not substantially perform the conditions precedent to receipt of the bonus. Whether Antonell substantially performed was a proper question for the jury to decide. Oven Development Corp…
-
Jockey Club, Inc. v. Bleemer, 413 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…midstream. We find no merit in either of its claims of error. Contrary to its position, the record contains ample and competent testimony to support the jury conclusion as to the reasonable value of the services in question. See Robinson v. Pinsker, 303 So. 2d 706 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); see also, All-Star Ins. Corp. v. Scandia, Inc., 353 So. 2d 171 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). The cases cited by the appellant for the proposition that a reasonable architectural fee may not be based solely upon a percentage of the total cost…