Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1982

Chitty & Co. v. Preston H. Haskell Co.

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided December 8, 1982 · McCord, Mills, Smith

423 So. 2d 460; 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21755 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Rich v. Gulliver (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Title & Trust Co. of Florida v. Parker (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MILLS, Judge.

Chitty & Company appeals a judgment of $40,000 entered in its favor following a bench trial on its counterclaim to Haskell’s contract action. We affirm.

The parties agree that Grossman Holdings v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1982), establishes the proper measure of *461damages. The evidence supports findings that: (1) the nonconforming warehouse constructed by Haskell could not be made economically conforming; (2) the building as constructed is worth in the real estate market $50,000 less than contracted for; and (3) the building is in substantial compliance, and in fact is in use, entitling Haskell to the unpaid contract price.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case involving conflicting experts by refusing to allow Chitty to expand the issues on the day of trial. International Patrol v. Aetna Casualty, 396 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Brown v. Montgomery Ward, 252 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).

There was no abuse of discretion in refusing to allow a property appraiser to offer opinions on methods of cure. This was clearly outside the area of his expertise.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and McCORD, J., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.