Schapiro v. Rubinson, No. 3D00-1206

• Decision Date: 01 November 2000
• Docket Number: No. 3D00-1206, No. 3D00-833.
• Citation: 784 So.2d 1135
• Parties: JAIME SCHAPIRO AIA & Associates Architects Planners and Jaime Schapiro, Individually, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Mitchell RUBINSON, as trustee of the White House on the Beach Land Trust, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

784 So.2d 1135

JAIME SCHAPIRO AIA & Associates Architects Planners and Jaime Schapiro, Individually, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Mitchell RUBINSON, as trustee of the White House on the Beach Land Trust, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 3D00-1206, 3D00-833.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

November 1, 2000.

Becker & Poliakoff, Clearwater and Roderich V. Hannah, for appellants/cross-appellees.

Goldstein & Tanen and Richard Goldstein and Susan E. Trench, Miami, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Before GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.

NESBITT, Senior Judge.

In these consolidated cases, Mitchell Rubinson, trustee of The White House on The Beach Land Trust (herein Rubinson), owner/developer of a proposed South Beach apartment complex, appeals a final judgment entered in favor of an architecture firm, Jaime Schapiro & Associates and Jaime Schapiro, individually, (herein Schapiro), on Rubinson's claims for breach of contact and negligence. Schapiro cross appeals the denial of a claim for foreclosure of lien and for payment of sums due. In the companion case, Schapiro appeals the final judgment denying its Motion to Tax Attorney's Fees and Costs. We affirm the court's decision on the main appeal and the cross appeal, and we reverse the order denying fees.

The crux of Rubinson's claim was that the parties had entered into a "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect," and that pursuant to the parties' agreement, Schapiro had submitted a Statement of Probable Cost, estimating the cost of the proposed project to be $5,020,025. Upon bidding out the project, its cost, even when scaled down, had come to over seven million dollars. Rubinson claimed this amounted to a breach of the parties' agreement as well as negligence.

Substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's decision that Rubinson's claims of breach of contract and professional negligence should fail. The trial court concluded that by entering a letter of intent to proceed with the project after being fully apprized of the additional cost of the project, Rubinson rendered moot the issue of any variance between the "statement of Probable Costs" and its affect on Rubinson's decision to proceed with the project. The court made a second finding that there was no negligence on the part of Schapiro that was the legal cause of any claimed damages by Rubinson. The court made a third finding that the project had not proceeded because Rubinson had made a business decision that more money would be made by selling the land.

We find the record supports the court's analysis and decision. There was testimony that during the construction documents phase, a second designer employed by Rubinson had submitted his interior design specifications. These specifications contained a number of high price items. Schapiro had advised Rubinson's project manager that the high price design additions would increase the cost of the project...