JEREMY STEWART CONSTRUCTION INC v. MATTHEWS II (2021)

This case stems from a complaint for breach of contract and breach of warranty for the construction of the appellee's home. After the appellant failed to respond to the complaint, an interlocutory default was entered against the appellant. The appellant eventually filed a motion to set aside the interlocutory default, which the trial court denied. The trial court held a bench trial and found the appellant owed the appellee $145,000 in damages.

The appellant raises three issues on appeal. First, it claims the trial court erred by failing to grant its motion to set aside the interlocutory default. Second, it argues the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to require the appellee to show a nexus between the breach of the contract and her damages. Third, the appellant claims the trial court erred when it awarded the appellee $145,000 in damages because the appellee failed to put forth competent, substantial evidence to support an award of that magnitude. Finding no error in the first two issues, we affirm them without further comment. Because the trial court's award of $145,000 is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, we reverse for the reasons explained below.

During the bench trial, the appellee presented evidence to support her claim that there was significant damage to her home caused by water intrusion and/or moisture accumulation in her home. One of the appellee's experts testified that he had visited her home around the time the breach occurred. In his opinion, the appellee's home could have been repaired by one of two methods. However, there was no evidence presented concerning the costs for those repairs. When the expert was shown pictures of the appellee's home as it appeared around the time of trial, the expert changed his position and stated that he did not believe the appellee's home could be repaired. He testified that her home would have to be demolished and completely rebuilt and stated the costs associated with those recommendations. Those costs were consistent with the values stated at the time the trial occurred.

Based on the amount the trial court awarded the appellee, it appears that the trial court found the appellee's expert credible and awarded the appellee most of the costs associated with tearing down and rebuilding her home. To the extent this was the trial court's support for its award of damages, this was error. Damages are assessed at the time of the breach rather than at the time of the trial. Grossman Holdings, Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037, 1040 (Fla. 1982); Peach State Roofing, Inc. v. S. Trail Corp., 3 So. 3d 442, 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Andalora v. Lindenberger, 576 So. 2d 354, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Based on the record before us, a damages award for $145,000 in not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse. The record evidence contains evidence to support some of the damages the appellee sought as of the time of the breach. As a result, we remand for the trial court to determine the amount of damages the appellee is entitled to receive as of the time of the breach.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

Per Curiam.

Lewis, Roberts, and Nordby, JJ., concur.