368 So.3d 12
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2023Background
- Nonjury trial in Palm Beach County court resulted in judgment for Nature’s Lawn for $7,119 plus interest after the court found a contract implied in fact between Nature’s Lawn and Rhythm & Hues, LLC.
- There was an express contract between Rhythm (owner) and a general contractor (GC), and an express subcontract between the GC and Nature’s Lawn covering initial landscaping work.
- Testimony (disputed) showed Rhythm’s representatives agreed to deal directly with Nature’s Lawn for additional landscaping “extras” and would pay Nature’s Lawn directly.
- Rhythm appealed, arguing (1) the existence of express contracts precludes an implied contract claim and (2) Nature’s Lawn failed to meet required elements for a subcontractor to recover from an owner (exhaustion of remedies against the GC and proof the owner had not paid anyone).
- The trial court also found Nature’s Lawn entitled to attorney’s fees, but the court had not yet fixed the amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether express contracts between owner–GC and GC–subcontractor bar an implied-in-fact contract for additional work | Nature’s Lawn: Express contracts do not bar an implied-in-fact contract for extras when owner and subcontractor directly agree | Rhythm: Express contracts covering the same subject matter preclude an implied contract | Express contracts do not automatically bar an implied-in-fact claim for extras; direct dealings supported a factfinder’s implied-in-fact finding |
| Whether a subcontractor must exhaust remedies against the GC and show the owner paid no one to maintain a claim against the owner | Nature’s Lawn: Those two elements apply only to quasi‑contract (implied in law), not to implied‑in‑fact claims | Rhythm: Nature’s Lawn failed to exhaust remedies and owner had paid GC, so recovery from owner is improper | Exhaustion/payment elements apply to contracts implied in law (quasi‑contract) only; not required for a contract implied in fact based on assent/conduct |
| Sufficiency of damages and reviewability of attorney’s‑fee award | Nature’s Lawn: Damages proven and fees warranted | Rhythm: Damages unsupported; challenge fee award | $7,119 damages affirmed as supported by competent substantial evidence; appeal of fee award dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because fees/costs amount was not determined |
Key Cases Cited
- Commerce P’ship 8098 Ltd. P’ship v. Equity Contracting Co., Inc., 695 So. 2d 383 (distinguishes contracts implied in fact from implied in law; sets exhaustion/payment elements for implied in law)
- F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen & Assocs. v. B&B Site Dev., Inc., 311 So. 3d 39 (recognizes implied-in-fact recovery for extras where express contract exists for other work)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Acme Elec. Contractors, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1187 (subcontractor may recover from owner for extras despite express owner–GC contract)
- Gene B. Glick Co., Inc. v. Sunshine Ready Concrete Co., 651 So. 2d 190 (owner‑paid cases where recovery against owner is barred; distinguished on facts)
- D’Amico v. Brightfelt, 924 So. 2d 872 (standard of appellate review: view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Sunrise Air, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp Equip. Fin., Inc., 132 So. 3d 298 (jurisdictional rule: appellate review of fee awards requires the trial court to have fixed the fee amount)