Federza Wins $50K in Miami Driveway Construction Dispute
Table of Contents
Case Background
In the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Federza Investments LLC brought a lawsuit against E & E Concrete Finish Inc. and Barreiro Concrete Materials Inc. The dispute centered on construction work for a residential driveway at 7501 SW 82 Avenue, Miami. Federza, a Florida limited liability company, claimed the Defendants’ actions caused financial loss and damaged the property’s title. E & E and Barreiro were Florida corporations involved in supplying materials and labor for concrete work.
Cause
On July 7, 2020, Federza and E & E made an oral agreement for the construction of a modernized driveway. The agreed contract price was $21,048. Federza paid 50% upfront. E & E subcontracted the supply of concrete materials and related labor to Barreiro. Federza alleged that both E & E and Barreiro failed to meet industry standards in their work. The driveway reportedly suffered from defective concrete and poor workmanship.
Federza sent pre-suit Notices of Claim under Florida Statutes, Section 558.004, to give the Defendants a chance to fix the problems. No satisfactory response came. In addition, Barreiro recorded a construction lien against the property but did not serve the required Notice to Owner. This lien, Federza claimed, clouded its title and interfered with business dealings involving the property.
Injury
The defective concrete reduced the driveway’s quality and usability. The damage made the property less attractive to potential buyers and lowered its market value. The improperly recorded lien suggested an unpaid debt and discouraged potential buyers and lenders. Federza said the lien harmed its reputation and slowed down financing opportunities. The combination of physical defects and title issues left Federza with a driveway that needed repairs, and a property tied up in legal complications.
Damages
Federza sought to recover the remaining contract balance it believed was owed and the cost of repairing the defective driveway. The company also asked for compensation for loss of property value and business opportunities. Legal costs for clearing the lien were included in the damages sought, along with attorney’s fees under Florida Statutes Sections 57.041 and 57.104. Federza claimed the harm would continue until the lien was removed and the driveway repaired.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Federza Investments LLC
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Hugo L. Garcia
Defendant(s): E & E Concrete Finish Inc. | Barreiro Concrete Materials Inc.
Counsel for Defendant(s): David Goldman
Key Arguments by Counsel
Federza’s counsel argued that E & E breached its contract by delivering substandard work. They claimed the concrete failed to meet industry norms and that the work lacked the quality expected in such a project. Counsel stressed that the defects were so significant they interfered with the property’s value and usability. On the title issue, they maintained that Barreiro wrongfully recorded a lien without following legal requirements, causing ongoing harm to Federza’s property rights.
The defense for E & E disputed the breach allegations but offered little detail in the record. Barreiro denied almost every allegation. They said they had not worked in concert with E & E, had not performed any labor, and had not caused any defect in the driveway. They maintained that their lien was valid and complied with Florida’s lien laws. Barreiro also claimed that E & E had been a cash customer, purchased ready-mix concrete between July 13 and July 15, 2020, and then failed to pay. When payment did not come, Barreiro said it served a Notice to Owner and filed the lien to protect its right to collect $8,902.64, including legal fees.
Claims Asserted
Breach of Contract Against E & E Concrete Finish Inc.
Federza alleged that E & E failed to supply materials and complete the driveway in a workmanlike manner. The poor workmanship and substandard materials, they said, violated the oral contract.
Construction Defect Against E & E and Barreiro
Federza accused both companies of violating industry standards and Florida’s construction defect laws. They claimed timely notices were sent under Section 558.004 but that neither company made meaningful repairs.
Slander of Title Against Barreiro Concrete Materials Inc.
This claim accused Barreiro of filing a lien without first serving a Notice to Owner, as required by Florida Statutes Section 713.06. Federza argued the lien was improper, harmful to its title, and damaging to its ability to sell or finance the property.
Defense Argument
Barreiro denied being responsible for any construction defect and said it did not perform the work. They insisted their lien was lawful and properly filed. The company also argued that E & E had ordered concrete from them and failed to pay, which justified the lien. Barreiro counterclaimed for lien foreclosure and sought to recover the $8,902.64 it said it was owed.
Jury Verdict
The jury ruled in Federza’s favor on the breach of contract claim against E & E Concrete Finish Inc. They awarded $45,000 in damages for that claim.
On the claim against Barreiro as a third-party beneficiary to the contract between E & E and Barreiro, the jury found that the agreement between those two companies was not intended to benefit Federza directly. Barreiro therefore was not liable under that theory.
On the breach of implied warranties claim, the jury found that while Barreiro did supply the concrete and was in the business of doing so, the concrete met trade standards. Despite this, the jury awarded Federza $5,000 in damages against Barreiro related to the supplied concrete.
In total, Federza Investments LLC received $45,000 from E & E Concrete Finish Inc. and $5,000 from Barreiro Concrete Materials Inc. The verdict closed the case with compensation for both the defective work and part of the damages linked to the supplied materials.
Court Documents