Roberts v. CFW Const. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-125,91-125 |
| Citation | 586 So.2d 1309 |
| Parties | Frederick M. ROBERTS, et al., Appellants, v. CFW CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Appellee. 586 So.2d 1309, 16 Fla. L. Week. D2587 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John D. Galluzzo, of John D. Galluzzo, Winter Park, for appellants.
Joseph A. Lane, of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.
On or about December 31, 1981 West Kennedy Apartments, Ltd. (W.K.A.) a Florida limited partnership, was formed to purchase, develop, construct and operate a HUD insured apartment complex. On May 28, 1982 W.K.A. entered into a Purchase and Development Agreement with CFW Construction Company, Inc. (CFW) as general partner and R, J & S Associates (R, J & S) as special limited partner.
The contract provided that CFW would receive the following fees:
Financing Fee-- $83,877 cash at closing
50,000 on 9/15/84
33,877 on 9/15/85
These payments were conditioned only on CFW procurring acceptable financing. This was done.
Consultant fee-- $33,000 upon final HUD endorsement
50,000 on 9/15/84
16,123 on 9/15/85
These payments were conditioned only on CFW making certain recommendations, evaluations and consultations on financial and administrative matters. These services were fully rendered.
Builders fee-- $43,000 upon final HUD endorsement
43,000 on 9/15/84
93,750 on 9/15/85
These payments were subject to CFW delivering the project on a "turnkey basis ... constructed substantially in accordance with the contract drawings and specifications ... evidenced by the consummation of the HUD final endorsement."
CFW obtained the HUD final endorsement on September 15, 1983, and W.K.A. took possession and started operation of the project. Shortly before the due dates of the deferred payments set out above, latent defects were discovered in some of the subfloors of the apartments. It is alleged that it was necessary to pull up carpets to repair the flooring caused by an improper cement mix which did not comply with HUD requirements in approximately 40 of the 90 apartment units. It is further alleged that it took over three years to remedy this problem.
Although all repairs were made at no cost to W.K.A., the deferred payments were withheld as follows:
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT DUE DATE DATE PAID
$43,750 9/15/84 2/28/86
50,000 9/15/84 3/11/85
50,000 9/15/84 3/11/85
93,750 9/15/85 1/15/88
33,877 9/15/85 1/15/88
16,123 9/15/85 1/15/88
W.K.A. contends that payment of these obligations was not required until all repairs were made since it was CFW's obligation to deliver the project in substantial compliance with the drawings and specifications. CFW contends it met all of its obligations under the contract when it obtained HUD's final endorsement.
CFW sued W.K.A., R, J & S and the various individual partners on the contract and on certain notes guaranteeing payment of the deferred fees. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CFW in the amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valley County School District 88-0005 v. Ericson State Bank, No. A-08-913 (Neb. App. 6/9/2009)
...However, the escrow agreement in effect ended once OPS demanded the funds be turned over to them. See, Roberts v. CFW Construction Co., 586 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. App. 1991) (notes were noninterest bearing only through due date; once due date arrived, deferred obligation evidenced by note became......
-
Bilic v. New Fairway Investments of Florida, Inc., s. 91-457
...from December 14, 1981, the date he should have been repaid, to the date in 1989 when he was repaid. See Roberts v. CFW Constr. Co., Inc., 586 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Having read the record and considered the applicable law, we reject the argument that the purported modification of ......
-
Nielsen-Miller Const. Co. v. Pantlin/Prescott, Inc.
...dishonored the note. Such a construction results in a conclusion without a premise. As the court did in Roberts v. CFW Construction Company Inc., 586 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), we interpret the promissory note here to be non-interest bearing only through the due date. Because the parti......