Taylor Morrison Services, Inc. v. Ecos
163 So. 3d 1286
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Taylor Morrison Services (Appellant) contracted on Feb 13, 2004 to build a home for Carol Ecos and Susan Bessing (Appellees).
- After closing, Appellees discovered construction defects; they stipulated $200,000 in compensatory damages and sought treble damages and attorneys’ fees under Fla. Stat. § 768.0425(2) for work by an "unlicensed contractor."
- Section 489.128(1) makes a business unlicensed if it does not "have a primary or secondary qualifying agent ... concerning the scope of the work" on the contract’s effective date; § 489.128(1)(c) fixes the relevant time as the contract’s effective date (or other contract dates listed).
- Department records on the contract date listed Douglas Guy (a certified building contractor) and others as qualifying agents for Appellant; Guy attested he was a primary qualifying agent on that date. Lisa Steiner was also listed but had resigned and disavowed involvement in this project.
- A permit was later applied for using Steiner’s name (she denied authorizing it); the trial court found no licensed contractor actually supervised the build and concluded Appellant was unlicensed and liable for treble damages and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant was an "unlicensed contractor" under § 489.128(1) on the contract effective date | Appellees: qualifying-agent status requires that a licensed contractor actually obtain the permit and supervise the specific job; because permit was pulled fraudulently and no licensed supervision occurred, Appellant was unlicensed | Taylor Morrison: licensure inquiry looks to whether the business had a person licensed for the type of work (a qualifying agent) on the contract date, not to later permit/supervision events | Reversed: licensure is determined as of the contract date by existence of a qualifying agent licensed for the scope of work, regardless of later permitting/supervision failures |
| Whether post-contract misconduct (fraudulent permit use; lack of supervision) can retroactively render a contractor unlicensed for purposes of treble damages | Appellees: subsequent misconduct shows no actual qualifying agent and supports unlicensed status and statutory penalties | Taylor Morrison: conduct after the contract date is irrelevant to the § 489.128(1) status inquiry fixed to the contract date; other sanctions address misconduct | Held: post-contract violations do not change licensure status as of the contract date; remedies for misconduct are separate from treble damages under § 768.0425 |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362 (de novo review of statutory construction) (court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo)
- Koile v. State, 934 So.2d 1226 (statutory interpretation starts with plain language) (principles for construing ambiguous statutes)
- Variety Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Perkins, 382 So.2d 331 (contextual statutory interpretation) (statutes must be read in context)
- Mendenhall v. State, 48 So.3d 740 (avoid construing statutes to render language meaningless) (rule against interpretations that nullify text)
- Alies v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, 423 So.2d 624 (qualifying agent responsibilities) (discusses qualifying-agent duties and business responsibility)
- Fla. Dep’t of State, Div. of Elections v. Martin, 916 So.2d 763 (in pari materia doctrine) (statutes on same subject should be read together)