Campagna Construction Co. v. Riverview Condominium Corp.

467 So. 2d 807, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1023, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13589
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 23, 1985
DocketNo. 84-1787
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 467 So. 2d 807 (Campagna Construction Co. v. Riverview Condominium Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Campagna Construction Co. v. Riverview Condominium Corp., 467 So. 2d 807, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1023, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13589 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, Campagna Construction Co. and Italo Campagna, appeal from an adverse final judgment entered in an action against them by appellee Riverview Condominium Corp. for breach of contract, negligence and breach of warranty in connection with the construction and sale of appellee’s condominium apartments.

The liability of appellants was established by the Circuit Court for Dade County pursuant to its order striking the pleadings of the appellants and entering a default against them for the continued and willful violations of orders of the court regarding discovery proceedings.

The circuit court, in a non-jury trial on the issue of damages, found that the evidence established that the reasonable cost of repair and/or replacement of the defective or omitted components of the building which were the subject of the lawsuit to-talled $229,241.41, and entered judgment against appellants for that amount.

Appellants contend that the trial court erred in the entry of its judgment because: (1) appellants were not given adequate notice or opportunity to be heard, (2) the court allowed a trial to be held to ascertain an amount of unliquidated damages, (3) the evidence did not support the amount determined in the final judgment, (4) the court failed to recognize appellee’s failure to mitigate damages, (5) the court found damages which were not probable, proximate or natural results of appellants’ actions, and (6) the court found damages which were speculative.

We have carefully considered appellants’ contentions in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have found them to be totally without merit. Therefore, finding that no reversible error has been demonstrated, we affirm the judgment appealed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pilkington Plc v. Metro Corp.
526 So. 2d 943 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
467 So. 2d 807, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1023, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campagna-construction-co-v-riverview-condominium-corp-fladistctapp-1985.