Case Name: Beatrice GUEST, James H. Guest, and Carole M. Giltz, Appellants, v. Willis M. ANDERSON and Lago Vista, Inc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-08-11
Citations: 425 So. 2d 545
Docket Number: Nos. 81-524, 81-525
Parties: Beatrice GUEST, James H. Guest, and Carole M. Giltz, Appellants, v. Willis M. ANDERSON and Lago Vista, Inc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: ORFINGER, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 425
Pages: 545–545

Head Matter:
Beatrice GUEST, James H. Guest, and Carole M. Giltz, Appellants, v. Willis M. ANDERSON and Lago Vista, Inc., et al., Appellees.
Nos. 81-524, 81-525.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Aug. 11, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1983.
William B. Mesmer of Baker & Hostetler, Orlando, for appellants Guest.
C. Jeffery Arnold of Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P.A., Orlando, for appellee Daniel L. Carr, Inc.
Roger A. Kelly and James E. Foster of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Bennett, Orlando, for appellee Orlando Masonry, Inc.

Opinion:
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Appellants Beatrice and James Guest appeal from orders determining liability in favor of appellees Orlando Masonry, Inc., and Daniel Carr, Inc., in an action to recover on a bond in a construction case.
As to the portion of the orders determining that appellants were liable on the bond, we find no error and affirm. However, as to the portion of the order determining that appellee Daniel Carr had substantially performed its contract, we reverse. We find that the pleadings and proof on summary judgment raised as an issue whether Carr had substantially performed in accordance with the contract plans and specifications. Therefore, we reverse and remand for trial on this issue.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
ORFINGER, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
. Appellants raised as a counterclaim that Carr had not performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The trial judge may have been of the opinion that failure to comply with the contract was an affirmative defense rather than a counterclaim and should have been so designated by appellants. However, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d) provides that when a party has mistakenly designated a defense as a counterclaim, the court, on terms if justice so requires, shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation.