Friedman v. U.S. Home Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2168,83-2168 |
| Parties | Sherman H. FRIEDMAN and Martha G. Friedman, his wife, Appellants, v. U.S. HOME CORPORATION, Clearwater Concrete Industries, Inc., and Robert Fertig, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Daniel B. Schuh of Schuh & Schuh, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
John T. Blakely of Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor & Ruppel, P.A., Clearwater, for appellees.
In this action for damages based on breach of a new home warranty and negligence, the Friedmans appeal from a final judgment in appellees' favor. We affirm.
The Friedmans agreed to purchase a lot and a new home from U.S. Home Corporation. Robert Fertig was the licensed contractor on the job, and Clearwater Concrete Industries, Inc., furnished the concrete for the floor slab in the new home. The compressive strength of the concrete slab is approximately 1600 pounds per square inch. Appellees admit that the applicable building code requires 2500 pounds per square inch and that the concrete slab therefore constitutes a defective component.
U.S. Home warranted the home to the original purchasers against defects in material and workmanship for one year from the closing date. Pursuant to the homeowners warranty, U.S. Home agreed to either repair or replace at its option and at no charge to the original purchaser any defective component.
In accordance with its warranty, U.S. Home proposed to repair the defective slab by covering it with a surface hardener, by shallow trenching and filling with mortar around the perimeters of the floors, and by replacing the slab in the garage. The proposal also involved rewarranting the house against structural deficiencies caused by the weak slab. The Friedmans doubted the effectiveness of the proposed repairs, rejected the offer, and filed the instant suit for damages.
Following trial, the lower court entered a final judgment in appellees' favor. Therein, the trial court found that the only issue was whether to repair or replace the concrete slab, that plaintiffs' experts believed that only total replacement of the concrete slab would cure the identified problems, that defendants' experts believed that the repair program proposed by appellees would effectively cure the problems, that all expert witnesses were equally credible, and that therefore plaintiffs had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants' proposed repairs were not a reasonable exercise of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gergora v. Flynn
...rent. We disagree. The trial court's judgment comes to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, Friedman v. U.S. Home Corp., 452 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Taylor Creek Village Association v. Houghton, 349 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and will not be disturbed on appeal a......
-
Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy Dist.
...pipes break with some frequency and that this does not necessarily indicate they need to be replaced). 5.See Friedman v. U.S. Home Corp., 452 So.2d 1111, 1112 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984) (illustrating disagreement among experts over whether a concrete slab needed to be replaced instead of being ......
-
Rollins v. Rollins
...of the evidence when the only evidence before the court was equally credible yet conflicting testimony); Friedman v. U.S. Home Corp., 452 So. 2d 1111, 1112–13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (affirming judgment where trial court found plaintiffs failed to prove their case by preponderance of the evidenc......
-
Rollins v. Rollins
... ... conflicting testimony); Friedman v. U.S. Home Corp., ... 452 So.2d 1111, 1112-13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) ... ...