SAM RODGERS PROPERTIES, INC. v. Chmura
61 So. 3d 432
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- SRP, a home builder, contracted with Chmura to construct a Monterey on lot 31 in Pelican Pointe; base price disputes arose between $246,700 and $256,700.
- A February 28, 2004 contract stated $246,700; a May 29, 2004 contract allegedly increased to $256,700, with the increase not signed by Chmura on the altered page.
- SRP began construction in January 2006; Chmura did not make two draw payments; construction halted March 10, 2006.
- SRP recorded a lien for $169,926 (April 26, 2006) and later an amended lien for $180,139 (August 30, 2006) reflecting additional work and costs.
- SRP obtained a final foreclosure judgment, which this court previously vacated and remanded for a new trial; the current appeal follows remand.
- Trial court found no meeting of the minds and deemed the altered contract unenforceable, ruling the contract and lien issues against SRP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a binding contract to build for $256,700? | SRP | Chmura | There was a binding initial contract for $246,700; the later $10,000 increase lacked consent and is not enforceable. |
| If the $256,700 contract is unenforceable, can SRP recover under the initial contract? | SRP | Chmura | SRP has a right to damages for breach of the initial valid contract; remand for damages on breach of contract and lien foreclosure. |
| Is the amended claim of lien fraudulent or valid, and how should foreclosure be determined? | SRP | Chmura | Amended lien was not fraudulent; non-lienable items excised; original lien valid; remand to foreclose for amended amount less taxes/insurance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (elements of contract breach: existence, breach, damages)
- Knowles v. C.I.T. Corp., 346 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (meeting of the minds essential to contract)
- Leopold v. Kimball Hill Homes Fla., Inc., 842 So.2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (clear terms and mutual assent required for enforceable contract)
- Delta Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 937 So.2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (work within contract extends lien filing period)
- Sharrard v. Ligon, 892 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (willful exaggeration required for fraudulent lien finding)
- Politano v. GPA Const. Grp., 9 So.3d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (excising nonlienable items without invalidating remaining lien)
- Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc., 584 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (allowing lien in reduced amount without finding fraud)
- McCown v. Pierce Construction, Inc., 552 So.2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (untimely amended lien; original lien enforceable if no prejudice)
- Johnson Bailey Architects, P.C. v. Se. Brake Corp., 517 So.2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (enforcing original lien when amended lien untimely)
- Swedroe, Robert M. Architect/Planners, A.I.A., P.A., 565 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (test for final furnishing of lien work; contract scope matters)
- Michnal v. Palm Coast Dev., Inc., 842 So.2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (flexible evaluation of contract scope; no hard rules)
- Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (considerations for breach damages)