Roberts Roofing Co. v. Smith

605 So. 2d 167, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9863, 1992 WL 222004
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 15, 1992·No. No. 92-598·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge’s findings of fact in a nonjury trial will not be disturbed where they are supported by competent and substantial evidence even if that evidence is disputed. Antun Invests. Corp. v. Ergas, 549 So.2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Ren-Del Enters., Inc. v. Florida Keys First State Bank, 539 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Competent and substantial evidence was presented that the appellant breached the roof repair contract and, for that reason, was not entitled to a judgment of foreclosure on its mechanic’s lien.

Affirmed.

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

Roberts Roofing Co. v. Smith, 605 So. 2d 167, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9863, 1992 WL 222004 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

605 So. 2d 167 (Roberts Roofing Co. v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D & J Industries, Inc. v. Key West Beach Club Condominium Ass'n Nos. 1 & 2, Inc.
847 So. 2d 582 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Mazzella v. Greene
802 So. 2d 458 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)