CANO, INC. v. MICHEL JUDET
20-1509
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2021Background
- In 2016 Judet contracted with Cano to repair lightning damage to his home for a fixed price of $300,000, payable in $30,000 draws. Cano began work and Judet paid $90,000.
- The parties stipulated before trial that Cano had not obtained required electrical and plumbing permits.
- Judet terminated Cano for breach after discovering the lack of permits; Cano recorded a $40,000 construction lien and sued to foreclose and for breach/unjust enrichment. Judet counterclaimed seeking discharge of the lien and restitution for overpayment.
- At non-jury trial both sides offered valuation experts; the court found Judet’s expert credible and set the reasonable value (quantum meruit) of Cano’s work at $49,150.
- The trial court ruled Cano materially breached, invalidated the lien, and entered judgment awarding Judet the difference between payments made ($90,000) and the work’s value ($49,150) — $40,850. Cano appealed.
- The Fourth District affirmed, holding the trial court applied an appropriate measure of damages and committed no reversible procedural error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Cano materially breach the contract by failing to obtain permits and substantially perform? | Judet: yes; failure to obtain permits was a material breach permitting termination. | Cano: denied material breach. | Trial court found Cano committed the first material breach; appeal affirmed. |
| Was the trial court’s measure of damages improper (wrong legal standard)? | Judet: he treated the breach as total and sought rescissory relief — return of payments less quantum meruit value. | Cano: court should have applied benefit-of-the-bargain measure (cost to complete or contract price minus cost to finish). | Court held rescissory damages were proper because Judet treated breach as total; returning overpayments less quantum meruit value was correct. |
| Did the court violate Perlow by entering Judet’s proposed final judgment? | Judet: trial court properly considered proposals, waited ~30 days, and gave parties time to object. | Cano: trial court improperly entered Judet’s proposed judgment in violation of Perlow. | Perlow was inapposite; Strand and the record showed no reversible procedural error. |
| Did the court decide an issue outside the pretrial stipulation by awarding overpayment recovery? | Judet: his pleadings and trial arguments sought that relief; awarding restitution was a necessary consequence of finding Cano owed only quantum meruit. | Cano: pretrial stipulation did not expressly list recovery by Judet; court exceeded stipulation. | Court may decide ancillary relief necessary to effect its rulings; Broche supports allowing judgment for overpayment as implicit in the stipulated issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982) (adopted Restatement measure for benefit-of-the-bargain damages in construction cases).
- Forbes v. Prime Gen. Contractors, Inc., 255 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (explains owner’s alternative remedies: rescissory restitution or benefit-of-the-bargain cost-to-complete/market-value approach).
- Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004) (procedural limitations on trial court entry of proposed judgments).
- Strand v. Escambia Cnty., 992 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2008) (distinguishing Perlow circumstances; procedural context for proposed judgments).
- Broche v. Cohn, 987 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (court may award relief not listed in pretrial stipulation if necessary consequence of its primary rulings).
- Rector v. Larson’s Marince, Inc., 479 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (discusses available remedies for total breach and precontract restitution).