An Inconsistent Position on Appeal
Sarasota Renaissance II v. Batson-Cook Company, Copper
Carry and Associates, et. al, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1279a, Case No.
2D11-5449, filed June 12, 2013: Contractor sued developer for breach of an oral
"reconstruction" agreement for the costs to repair water intrusion
damages to a condominium, as well as the performance bond surety, and the
developer assigned to contractor its claims against the architect for faulty
design on the expressed agreement that the assignment would not serve to
release any of such claims. Contractor filed motion to amend its pleadings to
assert the claims assigned to it pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.260(c), which the trial court denied based on the argument that such
amendment would be prejudicial to the architect, and granted the architect's
motion to drop the developer from the suit by ruling that the damages claims of
the developer had been released by the assignment. On appeal by the developer,
the court held that the assignment did not operate to extinguish or release the
developer's claims, but AFFIRMED the order to "drop" the
developer as a party based on the developer's failure to object to that order
and actually urging in favor of that order, thereby taking an inconsistent
position on appeal while failing to preserve this issue for appeal.
(From RPPTL Subcommittee)
Trenton H. Cotney
Florida Bar Certified Construction Lawyer
Trent Cotney, P.A.
1211 N Franklin St
Tampa, FL 33602
Comments
Post a Comment