FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 28, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1580 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar
D. C. Docket N o. 04-14244 -CV -D MM ROBERT J . DARRETTA, MARYELLEN DARRETA, Plaintiffs Co unt er -D ef

en da nts Appe lle es , ve rs us W IN D SO R P RO PE RT IE S, aF lor ida ge ne ra l partne rs hip , TO RW ES T, IN C., a Florida c orporation as general partner of W ind sor P ro pe rt ie s, D ef en da nts Co unt er -C la im an ts Appe llants
.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida (J un e 28, 200 6)2

Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H a nd D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: De fendants-Appellants W indso r Pr operties (“ W indso r”) and Torw est, I nc. (“ T or w es t” ) ap pe al a n a dve rs e j udgm en t i n f av or of Ro be rt a nd M ar y el le n D ar etta (“ th e Darre tt as ”), awar di ng m on et ary da m ag es in ci de nt al to sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce. T he D ar etta s f

ile d th is s uit

a ga ins t W ind sor

a nd T or w es t, the de ve lop er

of the
re sid en tia l c om

m uni ty w he re the D ar etta s purc ha se d tw o lo ts, se ek ing spe ci fi c pe rf orm an ce on a

ppr ova l of

the ir a rc hit ec tur al plans f

or the ir hom e, appoi ntm en t of aspe ci al m as te r to o ve rs ee the plan a ppr ova l and c onstru ct ionpr oc es s, a nd da m ag es f

or br ea chof

c ontra ct
. W ind sor

a nd T or w es t c ount er cl ai m ed

a ga ins t the D ar etta s se ek ing spe ci fi c pe rf orm an ce on the f

or fe iture a nd r ep ur ch as e of the D ar etta s’ s pr ope rty . F oll ow ing abe nc h tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d bo th p ar tie s’
re que sts f or spe ci fi c pe rf

or m an ce , a w ar de d dam ag es to the D ar etta s inthe a m ount of $755,058 .00, and ordered the parties to m ediate the ongoin g architectural dispu tes with an appointed sp ecial m aster. T he district court then entered jud gm en t p ur su an t t o F ed . R. Civ . P. 54 (b ) on th e m on et ary da m ag es award
.

“ W e rev ie w con cl us io ns of l aw de novo but do not dis turb findin gs of fact unless th ey

are clear ly

err oneous .” Godfrey v. Be llSou th Telecom ms. , I nc. , 89 F
. 3d 755, 757 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). “ E qui ta ble r em ed ie s w ill not

beTh e pa rt ie s d o n ot a

rgue that th e dama g e s w e re awa rd e d a s b re a c h o f c on tr a c t da ma g e s. 1 3 di st urbe d u nl es s t he [d]is tri ct[c]ou rt a bu se d i ts di sc ret io n o r m ad e an erro r of law, or unless the findi ngs of fact ar e not supp orted by the evidence.” Id
. ( ci ta tio n
om it te d)
. A ft er c ar ef ul r ev ie w , w e fi nd tha t the dis tr ic t c our t a buse d it s di sc re tio n in
aw arding m onetary

dam ages. As the district court properly noted in it s order
aw ar din g dam ag es , ac ourt m ay a w ar d dam ag es inc ide nt t o ade cr ee of spe ci fi c pe rfo rm an ce i n o rd er t o a dju st th e eq ui ti es be twee n t he pa rti es . See Kissman v. P ani zzi , 891 So.2d 1147, 1150 -51 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005 ) (“ [D ] am ages aw arded inc ide nt t o ade cr ee of

spe ci fi c pe rf

orm an ce . . . a re a

w ay of c om pe nsa tio n to ad j ust the e qui tie s be tw ee n th e pa rt ie s to pla ce the m in a posi tio n th at

the y w oul d have occupied had the contract been tim ely perform ed.”) (citation om itted). H ere, the dis tr ic t c ourt aw ar de d dam ag es to the D ar etta s, “ in o rd er to ba lanc e the equities,” although it had denied bo th pa rti es ’ req ue st s fo r sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce. T he a w ar d of

da m ag es , thu s, w as not inc ide nt to an y spe ci fi c pe rf

orm an ce a nd

1

was in erro r. A cc or din gly , w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s aw ar d of m one tary

da m ag es a nd
re m an d th is c as e fo r furthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on.Our re solution i s of cour se without prejudice to a n awa rd of damag es on re mand pursuant 2 to the Dar ettas’ br eac h of contra ct claim, or pur suant t o a gra n t of spec ific per formanc e (e .g ., assuming spe cific pe rfor mance of the e ntirety

of th e arc hitectura l plans is not appropriate, ne ve rt he le ss, sp e c if

ic pe rf or manc e of so me pa

rt the re of might be , or so me oth e r a pp ro pr iate sp e c if

ic perf ormanc e). 4 REVERSED a nd REMANDED. 2