Cano, Inc. v. Michel Judet

Summary

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a final judgment awarding Michel Judet $40,850 against Cano, Inc. after finding that Cano materially breached a construction contract by failing to obtain required permits and substantially perform its obligations. The court held that, because Judet treated the breach as total, he could recover payments made to Cano less the quantum meruit value of Cano's work. The court also upheld the trial court's resolution of the overpayment issue despite the wording of the pretrial stipulation.

Holdings

1. When a contractor commits a total breach, the owner may treat the contract as void and recover damages restoring the owner to the precontract position, or affirm the contract and seek benefit-of-the-bargain damages. Because Judet treated Cano's breach as total, the trial court properly awarded the $90,000 paid less the $49,150 quantum meruit value of Cano's work.
2. The trial court could award Judet the overpayment even though the pretrial stipulation did not expressly list recovery by Judet, because the award was necessarily implicit in determining that Cano was entitled only to the quantum meruit value of its services, and Judet had pleaded and argued for that relief without objection.
3. The trial court did not commit reversible error by entering Judet's proposed final judgment because the court had stated findings on the record, considered both parties' proposed judgments, and waited approximately thirty days before signing Judet's proposal, allowing Cano time to object.

Questions Presented

1. What measure of damages applies when an owner treats a contractor's material breach of a construction contract as total and seeks to be restored to the precontract position?
2. Whether the trial court improperly awarded Judet the amount he overpaid Cano when the pretrial stipulation did not expressly list recovery by Judet as an issue.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by entering a final judgment substantially based on Judet's proposed judgment.

Disposition

affirmed