Here's How You Can Protect Your Business

Roofing Contractor and Attorney’s Fees Case

“Mike Cobb v. David Durando and Jane Durando, husband and wife,38 Fla. L. Weekly D847a, Case No. 2D12-1991, issued April 17, 2013: After prevailing in a bench trial against their roofing contractor for breach of contract, the homeowners sought attorney fees pursuant to section 768.79 based on a single demand for judgment. The award of fees was reversed based on the requirements of Rule 1.442, FRCP, because the demand for judgment failed to “state the amount…attributable to each party,” as required by the rule. A dissent by Judge Alterbernd argued, in part, that only the husband had signed the roofing contract, and that application of the rule to a single cause of action which he could have brought in his name alone was “seems to have achieved form over substance.” (from RPPTL Construction Regulation Subcommittee).