In Vuletic Grp. L.L.C. v. Malkin, 418 So. 3d 627, 629–31 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025), reh’g denied (Sept. 9, 2025), the Appellate Court for the Fourt District reversed a trial court award of damages calculated nearly two years after Vuletic was terminated as the homeowner’s contractor. In 2018, Spencer and Fran Malkin (the “homeowners”) contracted with Vuletic Group, LLC (“Vuletic”) to remodel their house. The homeowners terminated the contract on November 25, 2019. Vuletic sought payment for completed work, which the homeowners rejected, leading Vuletic to sue for nonpayment in January 2020. In May 2021, the homeowners filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and construction defects. The homeowners alleged in its breach of contract claim that Vuletic failed “to supervise, coordinate, schedule, and/or manage a significant number of subcontractors and vendors working on the renovation,” leading to “construction defects and deficiencies.”
The case went to a bench trial in January 2023 where the homeowners presented testimony from their expert that, based on pricing as of September 7, 2022, the “cost to remedy all the issues that [he] referenced today” would be $414,372.00. The trial court found for the homeowners and awarded $499,250.00, which included pre-judgment interest.
On appeal, Vuletic argued that the trial court incorrectly awarded damages when it calculated from a date after the alleged breach. The Appellate Court relied on a decision from the Florida Supreme Court (Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982)) where it was clearly established that breach of contract damages from defective construction of a new home must be measured at the date of breach. The Appellate Court also referred to a breach of contract claim due to a defective roofing repair (Peach State Roofing, Inc. v. 2224 South Trail Corp., 3 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)), where the Court concluded the award of damages must be measured from the date of the breach in 2001, not when the roof was repaired five years later.
The homeowners countered that Vuletic had to prove the unreasonableness of the damages claimed by the homeowners. The Court dismissed this argument noting that the burden only shifts when the non-defaulting party (in this case, the homeowners) shows “actual expenditures occasioned by the breach,” which is defined as on the date of the breach.
Having failed to prove the actual damages at the time of breach, the Court determined the homeowners failed to prove all elements of the claim. Thus, “on remand, the homeowners are not entitled to a new trial on damages because such a hearing improperly allows appellee “a second bite at the apple” at proving damages. The Court reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment in favor of Vuletic. This ruling is important because it requires that parties making claims for damages to ensure the expert calculations are not adjusted to present day realities, but tied to the date the damage from the breach allegedly occurred.