Miami Jury Backs Contractor in Home Remodel Dispute
Table of Contents
Case Background
A Miami-Dade jury concluded a high-stakes construction dispute, finding that a pair of homeowners, Waeil Hmidi and Margot Huber, had breached their remodeling contract with contractor Mige Group, LLC. The verdict, returned on February 26, 2025, ended a months-long legal battle that pitted the Coral Gables residents against the construction firm they had hired to renovate their property.
Cause
This civil action centered on an alleged material breach of contract concerning the extensive renovation and remodeling of the Plaintiffs' residence in Coral Gables. The homeowners initially filed the suit, asserting Mige Group had failed to adhere to the terms and schedule of their agreement. The Defendant, Mige Group, immediately counter-sued, alleging it was the owners who had stopped the project and failed to meet their financial obligations under the contract.
Injury
The Plaintiffs' complaint detailed financial injury stemming from what they claimed were delays and improper work that required expensive remediation and completion by others. They asserted the contractor had failed to deliver the promised results, leaving the property in disarray. Conversely, Mige Group claimed the homeowners’ own actions—specifically, non-payment of contract installments had forced the company to stop work, incurring significant financial losses from project disruption and outstanding labor and material costs.
Damages Sought
Waeil Hmidi and Margot Huber had sued for damages necessary to cover the completion of the project and repair of alleged defects. The Defendant, Mige Group, counter-claimed for the unpaid balance of the remodeling contract along with other associated damages caused by the breach. The jury was tasked with determining who actually broke the agreement and what financial remedy was appropriate.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The trial unfolded over two weeks, focusing heavily on the timeline of payments, the scope of work outlined in the original contract, and which party’s actions first constituted a material breach of the agreed-upon terms. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mige Group had performed poorly enough to justify the homeowner's halting payment, or whether the homeowners stopped payments prematurely, thus breaching the contract first.
Legal Representation
The Courtroom proceedings featured vigorous legal debate from both sides.
Plaintiff(s): Waeil Hmidi | Margot Huber
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Keith J. Merrill | John I Criste | Siegfried Rivera
Defendant(s): Mige Group, LLC
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Nicholas D Siegfried
· Experts for Defendant(s): Ashar Anwaar
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The homeowners’ counsel argued that Mige Group never finished the project as scheduled, and the work it did complete often failed to meet professional standards. They asserted that the contractor had materially breached the agreement, compelling the owners to seek outside help to fix and complete the residence. The Plaintiffs’ legal team described a pattern of missed deadlines and faulty execution that had violated the fundamental premise of the renovation contract.
Defense
Mige Group’s defense team countered the claims, stating the contractor had performed its work diligently but the homeowners repeatedly failed to make required payments outlined in the contract's payment schedule. The defense asserted that the homeowners had materially breached the contract by failing to release funds after key milestones had been achieved. This failure to pay, Mige Group argued, became the first and most critical breach, preventing them from finishing the job and covering labor and material costs.
Jury Verdict
After deliberation, the jury returned a verdict on 26th February 2025 that decisively favored the construction company, Mige Group, LLC. The jury rejected the homeowners’ claims entirely, finding Mige Group had not committed a material breach of the contract.
Findings on Homeowners' Claim
The jury first addressed the claim brought by Waeil Hmidi and Margot Huber against Mige Group. The verdict form asked whether the Plaintiffs had proven, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the contractor had materially breached the contract. The jury answered NO, signaling their belief that Mige Group had not failed in its central duty to the homeowners. This decision immediately resulted in a verdict for Mige Group on all claims brought against it by the Plaintiffs.
Findings on Contractor's Counterclaim
The jury then turned to Mige Group’s counterclaim against Waeil Hmidi and Margot Huber. In this section, the jury found that Mige Group YES had proven that the homeowners materially breached the contract. The jury awarded $95,200 as the compensation on the breach of contract as they proved by greater weight of evidence that Mige Group incurred damage that was caused by the material breach of contract by Plaintiffs.
The jury subsequently determined the damages suffered by Mige Group due to the homeowners’ breach. The jury calculated and awarded a total of $8,329.96 in damages to Mige Group. This amount represented the financial injury the contractor had proven resulted from the homeowners’ material breach of the agreement.
Findings on Third-Party Indemnity Claim
Finally, the jury considered Mige Group’s separate claim for common law indemnity against third-party Defendant Fausto E. Guerrero, P.E. Mige Group had sought indemnity from the engineer for any damages it might have had to pay the homeowners. However, the jury found that Mige Group was not entitled to common law indemnity from Fausto E. Guerrero, P.E. This finding resulted in a verdict for Fausto E. Guerrero, P.E. on Mige Group’s indemnity claim.
In summary, the jury concluded that the homeowners had caused the material breach of the renovation contract and owed the contractor a specific amount for the damages caused. Waeil Hmidi and Margot Huber left the Courthouse having lost their initial lawsuit and having been ordered to pay Mige Group damages.