Background
Christopher and Joy Cates hired Ken Sarbu Construction Company, Inc., to replace balconies at their Amelia Island home. After delays and a breakdown in the parties’ relationship, the Cateses barred the company’s workers from the property. Sarbu Construction filed a construction lien and sued for breach of contract and lien foreclosure, while the Cateses counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraudulent lien, and negligence.
The trial court found the lien fraudulent and discharged it at summary judgment. Following a bench trial, the court concluded that neither party proved a breach of the parties’ other contractual responsibilities, but awarded Sarbu Construction $9,596 for work arising from an executed change order. The court then designated Sarbu Construction as the prevailing party. Both sides appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed the $9,596 damages award. The majority read the record as showing that the trial court found the Cateses breached their obligations under the change order. The court affirmed all other issues raised on appeal except the prevailing-party determination.
The court reversed the ruling that Sarbu Construction was the prevailing party because the trial judge applied the wrong legal test. Rather than relying on the damages award alone, the trial court must determine which party prevailed on the significant issues litigated. The case was remanded for application of that test.
Judge Makar concurred in reversing the prevailing-party ruling but dissented from affirmance of the damages award. He concluded that the award was unsupported because the trial court had not expressly found that the Cateses breached the change order, and he would have directed a finding that neither side prevailed.
Key Takeaways
- A monetary award under a construction change order may be affirmed when the record supports a finding that the homeowners breached their obligations under that order.
- Prevailing-party status cannot be determined solely by identifying which side received a net damages award.
- On remand, the trial court must evaluate which party prevailed on the significant issues litigated and may consider whether the overall result was effectively a draw.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that prevailing-party analysis in Florida construction litigation requires a case-wide assessment of the significant issues, not a mechanical comparison of the final monetary awards. A party that recovers some damages therefore is not automatically entitled to prevailing-party status or the attorney’s fees that may follow.
The divided opinion also highlights the importance of explicit breach findings when a contractor receives contract damages for partially completed work.