Best Drywall Services, Inc. v. Blaszczyk
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15865
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Best Drywall (Best) contracted orally to fully renovate the Blaszczyks’ condo, including AC, electrical, and plumbing; Best claimed total work value of $321,600.31 and unpaid final invoices of $61,600.31.
- Best recorded a claim of lien in Collier County on January 5, 2011; Best alleged final furnishing occurred October 7, 2010 and thus the lien was filed within the 90-day statutory period under Fla. Stat. § 713.08(5).
- At trial Best’s president, William Smith, gave inconsistent completion dates (Sept. 21, Sept. 28, Oct. 7, Oct. 8, Oct. 21, 2010) but also testified electricians and plumbers performed final hookups on Oct. 7–8, 2010.
- After Best rested, the Blaszczyks moved for directed verdict on the lien count; the trial court treated Smith’s earlier testimony as a party admission, allowed the Blaszczyks to amend to deny timely filing, and granted directed verdict on the lien count.
- Best appealed. The appellate court reviewed the directed-verdict ruling de novo, concluded Smith’s testimony created conflicting reasonable inferences about final furnishing, reversed the directed verdict as to the lien count, and remanded for a new trial on that count; the judgment on the breach-of-contract damages remained affirmed.
- A concurring/dissenting judge agreed the directed verdict was erroneous but would have affirmed the judgment in full (declining to order a new trial) because Best had not sought a retrial remedy and was satisfied with the damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of claim of lien (final furnishing date) | Best: Evidence (including electrician/plumber on Oct. 7–8) supports that final furnishing occurred within 90 days of lien filing | Blaszczyks: Smith admitted earlier completion dates outside the 90-day window; no evidence to show timely filing | Reversed directed verdict; conflicting testimony created factual issue for jury; remand for new trial on lien count |
| Effect of Smith’s inconsistent dates / party admission | Best: Testimony that final hookups occurred in October creates an issue of fact | Blaszczyks: Earlier testimony (Sept. 28, etc.) is a party admission establishing earlier completion | Court: Conflicts in testimony made issue factual; trial court improperly weighed credibility when granting directed verdict |
| Trial court deciding lien vs jury factfinder | Best: Wanted lien to be decided (trial court had agreed to decide it; Best later appealed directed verdict) | Blaszczyks: Framed directed-verdict arguments as though lien was jury issue; trial court accepted September date as admission | Court: Whether judge or jury, standard for directed verdict prohibits weighing evidence; error to resolve credibility on motion for directed verdict |
| Remedy / prejudice to Best from directed verdict | Best: Seeks reversal of directed verdict (to preserve potential right to seek fees under lien statute) | Blaszczyks: Best admitted it was satisfied with breach-of-contract damages; reversal is unnecessary/speculative | Court: Reversed directed verdict and remanded for new trial on lien count; one judge would have affirmed without remand because Best didn’t request new trial and showed no concrete harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson Hewitt, Inc. v. Kaman, 100 So.3d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (directed-verdict reviewed de novo and granted only when no view of evidence supports nonmoving party)
- Sims v. Cristinzio, 898 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (conflicting evidence or reasonable inferences make issues for the jury)
- Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Perez-Melendez, 855 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (same principle regarding factual issues and jury resolution)
- Sam Rodgers Props., Inc. v. Chmura, 61 So.3d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (test for final furnishing considers good faith, reasonable time, contract terms, and necessity to a finished job)
- Alpha Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Jewel Builders, Inc., 349 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (motion for involuntary dismissal in judge-tried case is like directed verdict; judge may not weigh evidence when ruling)