JOHN POMEROY v. GRIFFIN WINDOWS AND DOORS, LLC

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 18, 2023
• Docket: 2022-0738
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 18, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0738 Lower Tribunal No. 18-8374 ________________

John Pomeroy, Appellant,

vs.

Griffin Windows and Doors, LLC, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge.

Montalto Legal, LLC and Stephen Montalto, for appellant.

Delgado Vega PLLC and Daniel R. Vega and Arielle J. Brazeal, for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Mole v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 674 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (trial court did not err in granting judgment in accordance

with motion for directed verdict where plaintiff failed to present proof of proper

measure of damages, which was difference between contract price and

reasonable cost to complete improvements); Grossman Holdings, Ltd. v.

Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982) (homeowners not entitled to total

breach damages where house was built in opposite direction of that specified

in contract, and having house torn down and rebuilt to original specifications

would constitute economic waste; homeowners were entitled to any

difference in value as of date of delivery between house homeowners

contracted for and house that was ultimately built, and burden was on

homeowners to prove any such difference); see also Ponn v. Metro Express,

Inc., et al., No. 3D22-991, 2023 WL 5731753 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 6, 2023)

(“The choice to provide piecemeal transcripts deprived this Court of the

ability to review the record as a while. Absent a full transcript, this Court

cannot determine whether the evidence presented . . . at trial supported her

argument . . . .”); Solomon v. New ERA Meat No. 2, 961 So. 2d 989, 989

(Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (stating “it is the appellant’s burden to provide a record

that will overcome the presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s

findings” (quoting Smith v. Orhama, Inc., 907 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA

2005))); S. Fla. Apartment Ass’n, Inc. v. Dansyear, 347 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla.

2 3d DCA 1977) (holding that appellant’s failure “to provide the appellate court

with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error” leaves

appellate court “no alternative but to assume that the trial court ruled

correctly”).