Bellino v. W & W LUMBER AND BLDG. SUPPLIES
| Decision Date | 30 March 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D03-3138.,4D03-3138. |
| Citation | 902 So.2d 829 |
| Parties | Cindy BELLINO, Appellant, v. W & W LUMBER AND BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Julie K. Oldehoff of Oldehoff Law Offices, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.
Allison E. Butler and Leif J. Grazi of Grazi & Gianino, Stuart, for appellee.
W & W Lumber & Building Supplies sued defendant Cindy Bellino for damages on unpaid invoices of $34,079.65 and to foreclose its mechanic's lien. After a two day non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment for $12,765.16 in favor of W & W Lumber. Bellino moved for a rehearing, which the trial court denied.
Under the unique circumstances of this case, where Bellino accepted delivery and paid for a disputed item after the close of evidence at trial, we reverse the trial court's denial of the motion for rehearing. Given the amount involved, we also discuss the other issues raised on appeal in the interest of judicial economy, even though the reversal of the rehearing order removes the finality of the judgment.
Bellino is the owner and general contractor of her own residence in Palm City. W & W Lumber is a building materials supplier.
During the course of construction, Bellino delegated the responsibilities of everyday construction to her son, George Edmunds. Among other things, Edmunds was in charge of completing the rough framing for the door openings and the interior doors.
Bellino also hired a subcontractor to install the doors and the trim work. The subcontractor had never worked with W & W Lumber prior to the job on Bellino's home.
Bellino entered into a credit agreement with W & W Lumber to purchase construction materials for the job. Under the credit agreement, Edmunds had the authority to charge payments. David Luisi, an outside salesperson for W & W Lumber, took all of Bellino's purchase orders.
The architectural plans for the house called for twenty-two 96-inch doors. During construction, Luisi and the subcontractor measured the rough opening in the drywall to ensure that the doors and jambs would fit. They discovered that the planned 96-inch doors would not fit into the frames. Instead, they concluded that the plans required modification to allow for the installation of 94-inch doors to correct the fitting problem. According to the subcontractor, cutting the 96-inch doors to fit would violate industry standards, affect the structural integrity of the doors, and potentially void the warranties. The subcontractor further stated that "it just makes an esthetically pleasing and more professional appearance for the doors to be of the same height."
The subcontractor authorized the installation of the 94-inch doors. Thereupon, Luisi placed an order for the doors. The subcontractor and Luisi were aware of a time crunch to complete the job. They informed Edmunds of the problems with the doors. Edmunds essentially said, "Let's make it work."
Luisi asked Jeff Hewson (the installer) to install the 94-inch doors. At the conclusion of the installation, the installer opined that the doors "looked about normal." Until he went to collect his paycheck, the installer heard no complaints about the height of the doors from either Bellino or Edmunds.
A second problem area involved disagreements over the kitchen cabinets that W & W Lumber was to deliver and install. The first two sets were deemed incorrect for the house. Prior to the third set being shipped to the house, W & W Lumber requested that Bellino pay for the parts upon delivery. Bellino refused to pay according to this arrangement.
At the end of the trial, which included the trial judge's walk-through of Bellino's home, the court entered an oral ruling permitting W & W Lumber to deliver the replacement cabinets. Between the last day of trial and the entry of the final judgment, the delivery was made and Bellino paid $20,199.
The trial judge entered a final judgment for W & W Lumber on May 21, 2003. The court found, in pertinent part, that the gap between the floor and the doors resulted from problems in the installation. It also ruled that "it was reasonable for the representative of W & W [Lumber] to have relied on the directions" of the subcontractor. Against the $34,079.65 amount of the lien, the trial judge credited Bellino with $1,200 for reinstallations, $1,141.66 for returned items, and the $20,199 that she had paid for the doors after the end of the trial. The court found that $12,765.16 was owed and reserved jurisdiction to determine reasonable attorney's fees and to foreclose the lien if the amounts awarded were not paid.
The first issue on appeal involves the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berloni S.P.A. v. Della Casa, LLC
...the date the debt was due, even though there may exist a bona fide dispute as to how much is owed." Bellino v. W & W Lumber & Bldg. Supplies, Inc., 902 So.2d 829, 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Similarly, in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Florida Produce Distributors, Inc., 498 So.2d 1383, 1385 (Fla. 5......
-
Corr. Corp. v. City of Pembroke Pines, Corp.
...a question of fact that "must be sustained if supported by competent substantial evidence." Bellino v. W & W Lumber & Bldg. Supplies, Inc., 902 So. 2d 829, 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So. 2d 297, 301 n.7 (Fla. 2001)). We hold that the evidence presented support......
-
Baldwin v. Estate of Winters
...address issues raised in motions for rehearing when the ends of justice would be served. See, e.g., Bellino v. W & W Lumber & Bldg. Supplies, Inc., 902 So.2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Nat'l Enters. v. Martin, 679 So.2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA For this reason, we reverse the order dismissing the pu......
-
Belk v. McKAVENEY
...to parties who could have discovered the evidence in time to file a motion for rehearing. See also Bellino v. W & W Lumber & Bldg. Supplies, Inc., 902 So.2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530, a motion for rehearing is timely if filed no later than te......