5D08-1780 Latner v. Preusler

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D08-1780

Case Date: 03/09/2009

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2009

ROBERT W. LATNER AND LINDA P. LATNER, Appellants, v. PREUSLER & ASSOCIATES, INC., ETC., Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 13, 2009 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County, Edward E. Hedstrom, Judge. S. LaRue Williams and Drew Williams of Kinsey, Vincent, Pyle, P.L., Daytona Beach, for Appellants. Kevin K. Dixon of Kevin K. Dixon, P.A., Inverness, for Appellee. TORPY, J. The central issue in this construction contract dispute is whether the lower court erred in its interpretation of the jury verdict by entering judgment in favor of Appellee, the contractor, even though the jury awarded no damages. We reverse. Appellants contracted with Appellee to perform repairs to their house after it sustained hurricane damage. During the performance of the work, a dispute arose and Case No. 5D08-1780

Appellants terminated the contract before it was completed.

Appellee recorded a

construction lien and sued to foreclose it in a two-count complaint alleging breach of contract and lien foreclosure. Appellants counterclaimed seeking damages for a

fraudulent lien and breach of contract. The case proceeded to jury trial culminating in a special interrogatory verdict, the form of which was presented to the jury without objection. During deliberations, the jury asked, "If we were to award for damages under breach of contract, paragraph two, and we award the lien, does that double the amount to [Appellee]?" After discussion with counsel, the judge decided to respond by writing, "No."1 Although the jury concluded that Appellants had breached the contract, it awarded zero damages. The jury also concluded that the lien was not fraudulent, but made no award on the lien foreclosure count because the verdict form was devoid of any questions on that claim. The signed verdict stated: 1. Who do you find, by the greater weight of the evidence, breached the contract? (check one) __ (a) ___ (b) DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIMANTS LATNERS PLAINTIFF/COUNTERDEFENDANT RESTORATION

If you checked (a) DEFENDANTS/LATNERS, then you should complete number 2 below. If you checked (b) PLAINTIFF RESTORATION, you should skip Number 2 and go to Number 3 below. 2. What is the amount of money damages which RESTORATION sustained as a result of the breach of contract by LATNERS? We are unable to attribute any significance to this question. The question could have come from one juror and gives no insight into the deliberative process. Even if the question was from the entire jury, the judge answered the question correctly

Download 5D08-1780 Latner v. Preusler.pdf