24 HR Air Serv., Inc. v. Hosanna Cmty. Baptist Church, Inc.

322 So.3d 709

24 HR AIR SERVICE, INC., Appellant,

v.HOSANNA COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D21-61

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 9, 2021.

Law Office of Alexander Alvarez, and Alexander Alvarez and Anamari C. Del Rio, for appellant.

Pierre Simon, and Faudlin Pierre (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ.

LOGUE, J.

24 Hr Air Service, Inc. ("Contractor"), appeals from the county court's entry of final judgment in favor of Hosanna Community Baptist Church, Inc. following a bench trial. We affirm the county court's judgment that the Contractor anticipatorily breached the service agreement between the parties. However, we reverse the damage award because the court applied an improper measure of damages by awarding the Church the cost for installation of a new air conditioning unit, rather than the cost of repairing the existing unit as contemplated by the parties in the service agreement.

This dispute arises from a service contract between the parties involving repairs to a smoke detector and air conditioning unit. The Contractor, a licensed air conditioning company, agreed to repair the smoke detector and AC unit in the Church's building. The Church agreed to pay $765.00 for the smoke detector repair and $922.30 for the AC unit repair. After the Contractor's employees entered the church's attic to start the repairs, they realized that the wooden platform they were standing on was caving in and ran before part of the ceiling collapsed. After the ceiling structure was repaired by the Church, the Contractor refused to return and complete the agreed repairs to the smoke detector and AC unit for safety reasons. The Church sued the Contractor for refusing to complete the agreed repairs.

At the bench trial, Reverend Charles Dinkins testified on behalf of the Church. He confirmed that the Church had contacted the Contractor to repair the smoke detector and AC unit, that the repairs were never completed, and that the Church was willing and able to pay the agreed upon price after completion of the repairs.

Reverend Dinkins also testified regarding the amounts paid by the Church to complete the repairs to the smoke detector ($1,400.00) and the AC unit ($9,998.00). His testimony also revealed that the repair cost for the smoke detector was absorbed in the Church's annual security bill. Additionally, the repair cost for the AC unit included inspections from two service companies that suggested replacement of the AC unit.

Michael Dunn, corporate representative of the Contractor, testified that the Contractor refused to go back to perform the agreed repairs "because of safety reasons," and that he had requested proof of the ceiling repairs from the Church, which were never provided.¹

The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Church and awarded damages totaling $9,710.70 based on the difference between the agreed cost of repairs and the cost to complete the repairs paid by the Church. The Contractor now appeals.

a. Anticipatory Breach

"In reviewing a final judgment rendered from a non-jury trial, the trial court's findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness. We apply a clear error standard to the findings of fact, and a finding will not be disturbed unless it is totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, it is clearly against the weight of the evidence, or it was induced by an erroneous view of the law." La Ley Sports Complex at the City of Homestead, LLC v. City of Homestead, 255 So. 3d 468, 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (citations omitted). Moreover, the final judgment may be affirmed for reasons other than those articulated by the trial court.

See Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644–45 (Fla. 1999) (explaining under "tipsy coachman" rule, when a trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons, an appellate court may uphold the result if there is any basis to support the judgment in the record).

There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a claim for anticipatory breach against the Contractor. "A prospective breach of contract occurs when there is absolute repudiation by one of the parties prior to the time when his performance is due under the terms of the contract. Such a repudiation may be evidenced by words or voluntary acts but the refusal must be distinct, unequivocal, and absolute." Mori v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 380 So. 2d 461, 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Moreover, repudiation can be shown where one party makes additional demands not included in the initial agreement:

The law is clear that where one party to the contract arbitrarily demands performance not required by the contract and couples this demand with a refusal to further perform unless the demand is met, the party has anticipatorily repudiated the contract, which anticipatory repudiation relieves the non-breaching party of its duty to further perform and creates in it an immediate cause of action for breach of contract.

Twenty-Four Collection, Inc. v. M. Weinbaum Constr., Inc., 427 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (internal citations omitted).

The Contractor's request that the Church provide safety assurances of the ceiling repairs constitutes an additional demand that was not agreed to by the parties under the service contract.² Despite the Contractor's argument that it never abandoned the job, its demand for safety assurances coupled with its refusal to complete the agreed repairs until such assurances were provided was an anticipatory breach of the contract. See id. at 1111–12 ("A requirement of actual breach as a prerequisite for anticipatory breach would totally nullify the doctrine of anticipatory breach.").

Therefore, the trial court correctly entered final judgment for the Church on its claim for anticipatory breach as there is competent substantial evidence to support the judgment.

b. Damages

"A trial court's determination as to the method of calculating damages is reviewed de novo." HCA Health Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. CyberKnife Ctr. of Treasure Coast, LLC, 204 So. 3d 469, 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (emphasis in original) (citing Katz Deli of Aventura, Inc. v. Waterways Plaza, LLC, 183 So. 3d 374, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ). "There must be some reasonable basis in the evidence to support the amount of damages awarded. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the party seeking damages to present evidence to justify an award of damages in a definite amount." Tubby's Customs, Inc. v. Euler, 225 So. 3d 405, 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (citations and alterations omitted).

"When there is a total breach of contract, the nonbreaching party may affirm the contract, insist upon the benefit of his bargain, and seek damages that would place him in the position he would have been in had the contract been completely performed." Id. (citations omitted).

"Under this benefit-of-the-bargain theory, ‘the proper measure of damages would be either the reasonable cost of completion, or the difference between the value the repair would have had if completed and the value of the repair that has been thus far performed.’ " Id. (quoting Rector v. Larson's Marine, Inc., 479 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) ).

...