Bleet v. Seligman: FL Renovation Breach Verdict
Table of Contents
Case Background
This civil action arose from a failed home renovation project in Weston, Florida. Jack and Laureen Bleet, a couple residing in Minnesota, sought to renovate a Florida property they intended to use as a rental. They hired S&R Ventures, Inc., a Florida for-profit corporation, to perform the work, with Lee Seligman acting as a key representative of the corporation.
The couple filed suit in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, alleging that the renovation work never reached completion and that the contractor had failed to uphold the terms of their agreement. The Bleets claimed the project faced significant delays and suffered from various deficiencies in the work that the contractor performed, ultimately rendering the property unusable for its intended rental purpose. The couple initiated the lawsuit after their attempts to resolve the project's issues outside of Court had proved unsuccessful.
Cause
The core cause of the lawsuit involved the contractor’s alleged failure to complete the agreed-upon renovation work and deliver a functional property according to the terms outlined in the contract, which the parties exchanged via email on March 6th, 2022, and signed the following day. The couple also separately accused Mr. Seligman, the individual, of using false promises to convince them to sign the agreement.
Injury
The injuries claimed by the Bleets were purely financial. They suffered direct monetary loss from the payments made for incomplete or defective work. Furthermore, they incurred substantial carrying costs, such as mortgage payments and property taxes, for an extended period while the property remained non-operational. The couple maintained that they lost anticipated rental income because the project had stalled and they could not rent out the home.
Damages Sought
The Bleets sought to recover all financial losses they suffered as a result of the incomplete work, the delays, and the allegedly fraudulent actions. The total damages they sought included the cost to fix the defective renovation work, reimbursement for accrued carrying costs, and recovery of lost rental revenue, totaling several hundred thousand dollars.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Jack Bleet | Laureen Bleet
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Scott Alan Orth
Defendant(s): Lee Seligman | S&R Ventures, Inc.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Daniel R. Vega | Lucas J. Sanchez | Ceasar X Delgado
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The trial centered on whether S&R Ventures, Inc. breached the contract and whether Lee Seligman had committed fraud during the contract formation process.
Claims
The Plaintiffs presented two primary claims to the jury.
Breach of Contract Against S&R Ventures, Inc. The couple contended that the company, S&R Ventures, Inc., had fundamentally failed to meet its obligations under the renovation contract. They argued that the company provided substandard work, failed to adhere to timelines, and abandoned the project, forcing the Bleets to incur additional expenses to fix the damages and complete the home.
Fraud in the Inducement Against Lee Seligman Separately, the Bleets accused Lee Seligman, the individual, of using promises about the scope of the work and the timeline to induce them, the Bleets, to sign the contract. The couple asserted that these promises were the reason they decided to move forward with the deal, and they suffered detriment when those promises failed to materialize.
Defense
The Defendants, Mr. Seligman and S&R Ventures, Inc., denied all allegations of wrongdoing. Their defense team argued that any alleged damages were speculative and not supported by reasonable certainty. Crucially, the defense asserted several affirmative defenses. Regarding the claim of fraud against Mr. Seligman, they argued that the claim was invalid under the Economic Loss Rule and the Independent Tort Doctrine, legal principles that generally prevent parties from suing for a separate civil wrong when the underlying dispute is simply a breach of contract. They further maintained that the Bleets failed to state a valid claim for relief under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUPTA) because the losses were entirely speculative.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a verdict on August 29, 2025, in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. As to the Bleets' Claim for Breach of Contract against S&R Ventures, Inc., the jury found that a contract was entered into on March 7th, 2022, that S&R materially breached the contract, and that the Bleets are entitled to recover $26,644.00 in damages from S&R.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com