Florida Construction Law

Summary judgment in favor of condominium purchaser against developer for breach of contract and return of deposits was reversed to give the parties an opportunity to be heard and due to existence of disputed genuine issues of material fact pertaining to the breach.   Ness Racquet Club, LLC v. Ocean Four 2108, LLC,    2011 WL 4578164 (Fla. 3d DCA  2011). Trenton H. Cotney Florida Bar Certified in Construction Law Glenn Rasmussen Fogarty & Hooker, P.A. 100 S. Ashley Dr., Suite 1300 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 229-3333 www.trentcotney.com

To succeed on summary judgment, you need to address and refute all of the affirmative defenses asserted by the other party.  Helping Hand Private Foundations, Inc. v. Ocean Palms Beach Club, Inc .,  2011 WL 4647472 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Trenton H. Cotney Board Certified in Construction Law Trent Cotney, P.A. 1207 N Franklin St, Ste 222 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 579-3278 www.trentcotney.com

Getman v. Tracey Construction, Inc ., 36 Fla.L.Weekly D1363a (Fla. 2d DCA 2011): prime contractor filed a three count complaint alleging breach, unjust enrichment and lien foreclosure.  Owner filed a motion to dismiss.  Before the Owner answered the Complaint, the prime filed a motion for summary judgment.  The Court held that the prime was unable to refute all of the potential defenses or issues of fact that could have been asserted in the answer if it had been filed.  Trenton H. Cotney Florida Bar Certified in Construction Law Glenn Rasmussen Fogarty & Hooker, P.A. 100 S. Ashley Dr., Suite 1300 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 229-3333 http://www.glennrasmussen.com

In Austin Building Company v. Rago, Ltd. And Federal Insurance Company , Case No. 3D09-3238, filed April 27, 2011, there were cross-claims by both the prime contractor and concrete structural subcontractor based on Section 489.128, Fla. Stat. which were resolved by summary judgments in favor of each party (and the surety, who insured both the contractor and the subcontractor). Both judgments were reversed in this appeal based on the Court’s retroactive application of the 2009 statutory changes that delete reference to a “local” license, and on the genuine issue of material fact as to the extent of the contractor’s knowledge of the subcontractor’s unlicensed status citing Castro v. Sangles , 637 So.2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) barring relief to a plaintiff who participated in a wrongdoing . Trenton H. Cotney Board Certified in Construction Law Trent Cotney, P.A. 1207 N Franklin St, Ste 222 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 579-3278 www.trentcotney.com

Master Tech Satellite v. Master North America , 35 Fla. L. Weekly D2381a, Case No. 3D08- 2509, filed October 27, 2010: Affirmed Summary Judgment that contract for installation of satellite dishes was unenforceable pursuant to s. 489.532 (the companion to s. 489.128 for electrical and alarm contractors) because the installer was not licensed. The court noted that the installation required wiring to an electrical source of approximately 18 volts as well as grounding, causing it to “utilize electrical energy in any form” as used in the definition of “electrical contractor” in s. 489.516(2), Fla. Stat. (2004).  A strong dissent by J. Salter criticized the majority for allowing “the contractor-who-should-know-better” to keep customer payments while “stiffing the subcontractor.” Trenton H. Cotney Board Certified in Construction Law Trent Cotney, P.A. 1207 N Franklin St, Ste 222 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 579-3278 www.trentcotney.com