Anden v. Litinsky, 84-1579
| Decision Date | 10 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1579,84-1579 |
| Citation | 472 So.2d 825,10 Fla. L. Weekly 1703 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1703 Jerry ANDEN, Appellant, v. Steven LITINSKY and Laura Litinsky, and Cedar Investments, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Epstein of Hodge, Scholnik, Swan & Epstein, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Rod Tennyson of Powell, Tennyson & St. John, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees--Steven and Laura Litinsky.
Appellant, Jerry Anden, seeks reversal of a final judgment in favor of appellees, Steven and Laura Litinsky, for damages resulting from deficient construction of a residence.
The Litinskys entered into a contract with Cedar Investments, Inc., to have a home constructed in the Estancia West Subdivision of Boca Raton. During the negotiations leading to the construction contract, the Litinskys dealt with Jerry Anden. He advised them that he was a general contractor; that he had a great deal of experience in the construction of homes; and that he would oversee and supervise the construction on a daily basis and build them a quality home. Being satisfied with Anden's apparent qualifications, the Litinskys executed the construction contract with Cedar Investments, Inc. At all times material hereto, Anden served as the president of Cedar Investments, Inc., also known as Cedar Builders. Anden treated the corporation and himself interchangeably. In fact, on one occasion Anden told the Litinskys that Cedar Investments, Inc., Cedar Builders and Jerry Anden--"doesn't matter they are all me."
In actuality neither Anden nor Cedar Investments, Inc., held a general contractor's license. Therefore, a Mr. Flores, who worked for Anden but was not a licensed contractor himself, obtained authority from Charles Horas, a licensed contractor with Joe Block Construction Company, to use his license number to obtain a permit to build the Litinsky home. Neither Horas nor Joe Block Construction Company knew Anden prior thereto and Horas did not supervise the construction of the Litinsky home. Construction of the home was, in fact, supervised by Mr. Flores and Anden, neither of whom were licensed contractors. Horas conceded this manner of pulling permits was a statutory violation. Predictably, the construction did not comply with the plans and specifications, giving rise to disagreements between Anden and the Litinskys. As a result, a new contractor finished the job at a cost in excess of the contract price.
The Litinskys filed suit for damages against Cedar Investments, Inc., for breach of warranty and breach of contract. They also sued both Cedar Investments, Inc., and Anden for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. § 501.201, et seq., Fla.Stat. (1979), (commonly referred to as Florida's "little FTC act.") The trial court entered judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for $26,810.64, finding that Cedar Investments had breached its implied warranty and its contractual obligations to the plaintiffs by failing to build the home pursuant to standard specifications and reasonable standards of merchantability, and further finding that Anden had violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The judgment specifically found that Anden engaged in the trade or commerce of supervising the building of homes for others; that he represented himself personally to the Litinskys as a general contractor who would supervise the building of a quality home for them pursuant to plans and specifications. The court further found that these representations were false as they implied he was a licensed general contractor with state-required minimum skills to build single family homes. Anden has perfected this appeal from that judgment.
Anden contends that it was error to find him personally liable for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Star Brite Distributing, Inc. v. Gavin
...disregard. See, e.g., White-Wilson Medical Center v. Dayta Consultants, Inc., 486 So.2d 659 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.1986); Anden v. Litinsky, 472 So.2d 825 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.1985); Littman v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co., 425 So.2d 636, 640 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1983); Childers v. Beaver Dam Plantation, ......
-
In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., Case No. ML 12-2317 CAS (JEMx)
...in transaction between consumer and corporate subsidiary where consumer did not know it was contracting with subsidiary); Anden v. Litinsky, 472 So. 2d 825, 826 - 827 (individual defendant was direct participant in transaction between consumer and corporation where all negotiations and sale......
-
Aboujaoude v. Poinciana Development Co. II
...to pierce the corporate veil because individual defendant was a direct participant in the dealings); see also Anden v. Litinsky, 472 So.2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Thus, if the Aboujaoudes have alleged that Reardon was a "direct participant" in the actions which constituted a violation of F......
-
Kc Leisure, Inc. v. Haber
...theory an aggrieved party must allege that the individual was a direct participant in the improper dealings. See Anden v. Litinsky, 472 So.2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); General Dev. Corp. v. Catlin, 139 So.2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); see also Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA......
-
The unexplored territory of unfairness in Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
...1566 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (landlord failed to maintain premises in compliance with building, housing and health codes); Anden v. Litinsky, 472 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1985) (misrepresentations by home [41] FLA. ADMIN. CODE ch. 2-18. [42] FLA. STAT. [subsections] 496.416, 501.057, 320.27(2),......
-
Unresolved Issues Under the Unfair Trade Practices Act
...Plowman v. Bagnal, 450 S.E.2d 36, 37-38 (S.C. 1994); Elder v. Coronet Ins. Co., 558 N.E.2d 1312 (Ill. App. 1990); Anden v. Litinsky, 472 So.2d 825 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985); Weitzel v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1985); Aungst v. Roberts Communication Co., Inc. 625 P.2d 167 (Wash. 1981); ......
-
The impact of unlicensed contractor activities.
...Declaratory Judgment, and subsection (2) allows for the recovery of actual damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs. In Anden v. Litinsky, 472 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), the owners' judgment against an unlicensed contractor for damages arising out of defective construction and brought p......
-
Per se violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
..."could constitute either an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act for purposes" of FDUTPA. (45) Anden v. Litinsky, 472 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), was a FDUTPA case brought by property owners against an "investment" company and individually against its president for......