KING 205, LLC v. DICK PITTMAN ROOF SERVICES, INC.

• Decision Date: 19 March 2010
• Docket Number: No. 5D08-3529.,5D08-3529.
• Citation: 31 So.3d 242
• Parties: KING 205, LLC and Douglas Ferrell, Appellant, v. DICK PITTMAN ROOF SERVICES, INC., et al., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

31 So.3d 242

KING 205, LLC and Douglas Ferrell, Appellant, v. DICK PITTMAN ROOF SERVICES, INC., et al., Appellee.

No. 5D08-3529.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 19, 2010.

D. Brad Hughes of D. Brad Hughes, P.A., St. Johns, for Appellant.

Sandra J. Mathis and Cristine M. Russell of Rogers Towers, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PALMER, J.

In this lien foreclosure action, King 205, LLC, and Douglas Ferrell appeal the final order entered by the trial court in favor of Dick Pittman Roof Services, Inc. (Pittman). We reverse as to the calculation of interest and as to the imposition of personal liability on Ferrell, but affirm in all other respects.

Pittman sued King 205 and Ferrell alleging claims of breach of an oral contract, unjust enrichment, and foreclosure on a claim of lien. The claims all arose out of Pittman's replacement of a leaky roof on an office building owned by King 205. After a non-jury trial, the trial court found in favor of Pittman and against King 205 and Ferrell on both the breach of contract and the lien foreclosure counts, further determining that it did not need to reach the claim of unjust enrichment since it had found that an oral contract had existed. This appeal timely followed.

Ferrell contends that the trial court reversibly erred in finding him individually liable on the lien foreclosure count because he does not own the subject property. We agree.

In its complaint, Pittman asserted that the property at issue was "owned by Douglas Ferrell d/b/a Douglas Ferrell Electric, Inc., and King 205, L.L.C." The copy of the Claim of Lien filed by Pittman described the property as being owned by "Douglas Ferrell DBA 205, LLC." However, the Notice of Commencement names "King 205 LLC" as the "owner's name", and Ginger Ferrell testified that King 205 owns the subject property. This testimony concerning the owner of the property was not disputed at trial. Because the record evidence demonstrates that Ferrell did not personally own the subject property, it was error for the trial court to hold him personally liable on Pittman's lien foreclosure claim.

Ferrell also argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it entered a judgment against him individually on the breach of contract count since such judgment was inconsistent with its own findings of facts and with the evidence presented at trial. We agree.

The trial court made a specific finding of fact that

an oral contract for the construction of a new roof on Defendant's premises at 205 West King Street was entered into by Dick Pittman, on behalf of Dick Pittman Roof Services, Inc., and Douglas Ferrell, on behalf of King 205, LLC as owners of the said premises.

However, the court then entered a judgment against both King 205 and Douglas Ferrell individually. Since such final judgment is inconsistent with the trial court's findings of fact, we reverse and remand with instruction to strike the language holding Ferrell individually liable on the breach of contract count.

Ferrell and King 205 next argue that the trial court reversibly erred when it determined that the terms of the parties' contract called for a cost plus billing arrangement, claiming that the evidence...