You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Cypress Fairway Condominium v. Bergeron Construction Co.

Citations: 164 So. 3d 706; 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6841; 40 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1097Docket: No. 5D13-4102

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 8, 2015; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a construction defect lawsuit involving significant claims for repair damages, the appellate court addressed the interpretation of the statute of repose under Florida Statutes section 95.11(3)(c). The Cypress Fairway Condominium Association appealed a trial court's decision that dismissed their claim as untimely, arguing that the statute of repose should begin on the date of final payment, February 2, 2001, instead of the earlier date of January 31, 2001, which was the date of the final payment application. The Appellee, Da Pau Enterprises, Inc., contended that the statute commenced on the earlier date, thereby barring the suit. The appellate court found the statutory language clear and concluded that the statute of repose begins upon the completion of the contract, which includes final payment. Thus, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling, determining that the action was timely filed and remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the explicit statutory language when determining the commencement of time limitations in construction defect cases.

Legal Issues Addressed

Judicial Interpretation of Statutory Language

Application: The court held that reliance on the statute's preamble was incorrect given that the statute's language was clear and unambiguous, thus requiring no additional interpretation.

Reasoning: The trial court's reliance on the statute's preamble was deemed incorrect since the language of the statute itself is clear, and no additional interpretation was necessary.

Reversal of Trial Court's Ruling

Application: The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment because the trial court wrongly commenced the statute of repose at construction completion rather than contract completion.

Reasoning: The court ultimately reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the statute of repose commenced on February 2, 2001, the date of final payment, making the Appellant's claims timely.

Statute of Repose under Florida Statutes Section 95.11(3)(c)

Application: The court determined that the statute of repose begins when the contract is completed, which includes the final payment date, thus impacting the timeliness of the construction defect claims.

Reasoning: The court concluded that the statute's unambiguous text indicates that the statute of repose begins when the contract is completed, which is defined as the completion of performance by both parties, including final payment.