Robert J. Darretta v. Windsor Properties , 183 F. App'x 928 ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 05-15806 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 28, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-14244-CV-DMM
ROBERT J. DARRETTA,
MARYELLEN DARRETA,
Plaintiffs
Counter-Defendants
Appellees,
versus
WINDSOR PROPERTIES, a Florida general partnership,
TORWEST, INC., a Florida corporation as general partner
of Windsor Properties,
Defendants
Counter-Claimants
Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(June 28, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendants-Appellants Windsor Properties (“Windsor”) and Torwest, Inc.
(“Torwest”) appeal an adverse judgment in favor of Robert and Maryellen Daretta
(“the Darrettas”), awarding monetary damages incidental to specific performance.
The Darettas filed this suit against Windsor and Torwest, the developer of the
residential community where the Darettas purchased two lots, seeking specific
performance on approval of their architectural plans for their home, appointment
of a special master to oversee the plan approval and construction process, and
damages for breach of contract. Windsor and Torwest counterclaimed against the
Darettas seeking specific performance on the forfeiture and repurchase of the
Darettas’s property. Following a bench trial, the district court denied both parties’
requests for specific performance, awarded damages to the Darettas in the amount
of $755,058.00, and ordered the parties to mediate the ongoing architectural
disputes with an appointed special master. The district court then entered
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) on the monetary damages award.
“We review conclusions of law de novo but do not disturb findings of fact
unless they are clearly erroneous.” Godfrey v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 89 F.3d
755, 757 (11th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). “Equitable remedies will not be
2
disturbed unless the [d]istrict [c]ourt abused its discretion or made an error of law,
or unless the findings of fact are not supported by the evidence.” Id. (citation
omitted).
After careful review, we find that the district court abused its discretion in
awarding monetary damages. As the district court properly noted in its order
awarding damages, a court may award damages incident to a decree of specific
performance in order to adjust the equities between the parties. See Kissman v.
Panizzi, 891 So.2d 1147, 1150-51 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (“[D]amages awarded
incident to a decree of specific performance . . . are a way of compensation to
adjust the equities between the parties to place them in a position that they would
have occupied had the contract been timely performed.”) (citation omitted). Here,
the district court awarded damages to the Darettas, “in order to balance the
equities,” although it had denied both parties’ requests for specific performance.
The award of damages, thus, was not incident to any specific performance1 and
was in error.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s award of monetary damages and
remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1
The parties do not argue that the damages were awarded as breach of contract damages.
3
REVERSED and REMANDED.2
2
Our resolution is of course without prejudice to an award of damages on remand pursuant
to the Darettas’ breach of contract claim, or pursuant to a grant of specific performance (e.g.,
assuming specific performance of the entirety of the architectural plans is not appropriate,
nevertheless, specific performance of some part thereof might be, or some other appropriate specific
performance).
4