Court Opinion

ID: 9876592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 15:04:18.877196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:27.121337
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                       SECOND DISTRICT

  JEFF COLE; ASHLEY DAVIS; MARIO CALDAROLA; TONIKA BRUCE;
                 and CHRISTINA CARTAGENA,

                               Appellants,

                                    v.

       PLANTATION PALMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

                                Appellee.

                             No. 2D22-3068

                          September 27, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Kemba Lewis, Judge.

George Harder of Harder Law, Lutz, for Appellants.

Scott A. Cole and Francesca M. Stein of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.,
Miami, for Appellee.

LUCAS, Judge.
     Jeff Cole, Ashley Davis, Mario Caldarola, Tonika Bruce, and
Christina Cartagena (collectively, the Homeowners) appeal a final
summary judgment entered in favor of Plantation Palms Homeowners
Association, Inc. (the HOA). We reverse.
     The Homeowners reside in the Plantation Palms deed-restricted
community; as such, their properties are subject to a declaration of
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs). Pursuant to the CCRs,
the HOA is responsible for maintaining the common areas of the
Plantation Palms community, including a certain stormwater drainage
ditch. The Homeowners' properties are all located alongside this
drainage ditch.
     In October 2012, the Southwest Florida Water Management District
sent a violation notice to the HOA stating that the drainage ditch had
"not been maintained and is causing erosion and sedimentation within
the ditch." The HOA hired a civil engineering firm which tested land
approximately 500 feet east of the Homeowners' residences. In 2015,
that firm reported there were indeed loose soil conditions that had
impacted the drainage ditch's bank and that the extent of damage was
between "appreciable and severe." The firm also advised the HOA that, in
addition to the location it had evaluated, "there are many other
residences along the drainage ditch with similar problems." The HOA
hired a separate firm to perform restorative work in and around the
drainage ditch, work which included removal of portions of the
Homeowners' properties.
     After the Homeowners began noticing cracks in their foundations,
walls, and ceilings, they filed a lawsuit in September 2018 for breach of
contract, alleging that the HOA had failed to adequately maintain or
properly repair the drainage ditch as required by the CCRs. In the
course of litigation, the Homeowners hired Dhirendra S. Saxena, an
engineer, to inspect their properties and assess the extent of damage.

                                    2
      On September 24, 2021, Mr. Saxena issued his "Geo-forensic
Exploration, Field Testing, and Engineering Evaluation Services Report"1
(Saxena Report), a report that would eventually become a feature of the
judgment on appeal. In pertinent part, his report stated that he
"examine[d] the areas, assess[ed] the stratification and engineering
properties of subsurface soils and . . . evaulat[ed] the soil structure
interaction of foundations at [Mr. Cole's] residence . . . to address the
likely presence of any deficiencies resulting in any significant movement
of foundation support"; "[c]onducted a subsurface exploration program
consisting of the advancement of two (2) standard penetration test (SPT)
borings to approximate depth of 40 to 50 feet within the front and back
of the existing residential structure"; "[u]sed hand augers . . . to avoid
any utilities in the upper 4 feet [of soil and] [s]tandard penetration testing
techniques were used below the depth of 4 feet"; "[m]easured the
immediate groundwater levels at the boring locations"; "[r]eviewed and
visually classified the recovered soil samples in the laboratory using the
Unified Soil Classification System"; selected two test pit locations
adjacent to an exterior load bearing wall and performed "a drive-sleeve
density test" and "[a]dvanced hand auger borings" at each test pit
location; and "[p]erformed Manual Cone Penetrometer Probes (MCPP) and
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests (DCPT) and measured/documented
cone values."
      The report further stated that the procedures used for the field
sampling and testing "were in general accordance with industry standard
of care and established geotechnical engineering practice." The Saxena

      1 We refer specifically to the report prepared for the Cole property

throughout this opinion; however, Mr. Saxena prepared substantially
identical reports for each of the Homeowners' properties.
                                      3
Report included certain qualifications and caveats and concluded that it
was "very likely" that Mr. Cole's house had construction defects.
However, the report continued:
     [C]hanges in soil compaction or consistency from bank
     erosion of the canal (that borders the north property line of
     Cole property) in conjunction with unstable slope existing
     during undercutting of the bank cannot be ruled out.
     Therefore, due to the afore-mentioned unsatisfactory
     compaction of the soil, the foundation has most likely
     experienced differential movement which has resulted in
     ensuing cracks to the perimeter/exterior load bearing walls
     and likely damage to interior of the home as well.

     Mr. Saxena concluded:
     It is my opinion, within a reasonable professional probability,
     that damage to Cole property (residential structure-
     interior/exterior, and to backyard property line) is likely
     related to residence construction, long term erosion of the
     earthen bank and/or loss of stabilizing soil into the creek,
     lack of maintenance and flood control of this regional
     drainage feature, inadequate analysis of the proposed
     gabion stabilized retaining wall, and questionable
     construction.

     The HOA moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no
admissible evidence that the erosion of the drainage ditch had any
causal connection to any damage to the Homeowners' properties. With
respect to the Saxena Report, the HOA contended that it was highly
speculative and failed to adequately connect the alleged damage to the
Homeowners' properties and the drainage ditch the HOA was responsible
for maintaining.
     The circuit court agreed with the HOA. In its order granting the
HOA's motion for summary judgment, the court reasoned that
     [n]either Mr. Saxena's reports nor any other record evidence
     in this case is sufficient to establish the requisite causal

                                    4
     connection between Plaintiffs' claimed property damages and
     any erosion of the subject canal or any construction related to
     the restoration project undertaken to address that erosion.
     To the extent that Mr. Saxena opines or suggests such a
     causal relationship, his opinions are unsupported speculation
     and, thus, inadmissible as evidence to oppose the
     Association's Motion for Final Summary Judgment.

Citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993),
the court deemed the Saxena Report was "pure opinion and unsupported
speculation not derived from 'scientific method' and 'empirical testing.' "
Since there was no admissible evidence to support the element of
causation in the Homeowners' breach of contract claim,2 the circuit court
entered summary judgment against them.
     The Homeowners have timely appealed that judgment. We review
the court's summary judgment de novo. Pio v. Simon Cap. GP, 48 Fla. L.

     2 The parties have agreed that the violations of the CCRs alleged in

this lawsuit can give rise to a breach of contract action. The elements of
a breach of contract claim are (1) the existence of a contract; (2) a breach
of the contract; and (3) causation of damages as a result of the breach.
See Synergy Contracting Grp., Inc. v. Fednat Ins. Co., 332 So. 3d 62, 65
(Fla. 2d DCA 2021); JF & LN, LLC v. Royal Oldsmobile-GMC Trucks Co.,
292 So. 3d 500, 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Parks,
338 So. 3d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (citing A.R. Holland, Inc. v.
Wendco Corp., 884 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)).
      The materiality of a contractual term or condition's breach is not,
properly speaking, an element of a breach of contract cause of action,
but rather a consideration as to whether the nonbreaching party would
be excused from further performance. See Synergy Contracting, 332 So.
3d at 65 n.2 (citing 23 Williston on Contracts § 63:3 (4th ed.)); JF & LN,
292 So. 3d at 509 ("When focusing on the breach of the contract, not
every breach permits the nonbreaching party to cease performance.");
Hostway Servs., Inc. v. HWAY FTL Acquisition Corp., No. 09-61315-CIV,
2010 WL 3604671, at * 9 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2010) ("Because the
materiality requirement appears to be the result of spontaneous
generation, the Court is reluctant to require an aggrieved party to prove a
'material breach' to establish a breach of contract under Florida law.").
                                     5
Weekly D1351, D1351 (Fla. 2d DCA July 7, 2023). "Under the new [2021
amendment] summary judgment standard, summary judgment is
warranted 'if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.' " Id. (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a)).
      The circuit court correctly summarized the federal standard for
summary judgment that rule 1.510 now applies to Florida courts. In
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), the Supreme Court
held that the burden on the party moving for summary judgment "may
be discharged by 'showing'—that is, pointing out to the district court—
that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's
case." "Once the party moving for summary judgment satisfies this
initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to come
forward with evidence demonstrating that a genuine dispute of material
fact exists." Romero v. Midland Funding, LLC, 358 So. 3d 806, 808 (Fla.
3d DCA 2023) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324).
      In the case at bar, however, the Homeowners did proffer evidence of
causation, including their personal observations, the timing of the
damage to their homes and, most pertinent, the Saxena Report. That
engineering report concluded that one of the causes of the damage to the
Homeowners' properties was "very likely" a lack of care and maintenance
to the drainage ditch that the HOA was responsible for. Of course, the
report did not claim that that lack of maintenance was the sole cause of
the property damage; but it didn't have to. See Ariz. Chem. Co. v.
Mohawk Indus., Inc., 193 So. 3d 95, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ("The
plaintiff need not show that the defendant's action was the sole cause of
the damages sought . . . ."); Cedar Hills Props. Corp. v. E. Fed. Corp., 575
So. 2d 673, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("In all cases involving problems of

                                       6
causation and responsibility for harm, a good many factors have united
in producing the result; the plaintiff's total injury may have been the
result of many factors in addition to the defendant's tort or breach of
contract. . . . In order to establish liability the plaintiff must show that
the defendant's breach was a 'substantial factor' in causing the injury."
(quoting 5 Corbin on Contracts § 999 (1964))).
      The court's error appears to have proceeded from its decision to
sua sponte strike the Saxena Report under the auspice of Daubert, 509
U.S. at 592-93 (stating that the trial court must make "a preliminary
assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the
testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or
methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue" and explaining
that "[m]any factors will bear on the inquiry, and we do not presume to
set out a definitive checklist or test[,] [b]ut some general observations are
appropriate"). See also § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (2022) ("If scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in
understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education may testify about it in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if:
(1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) The testimony
is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) The witness has
applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.").
But no one ever claimed, much less identified, how Mr. Saxena's
methodology was anything other than what he stated in his report—that
is, "in general accordance with industry standard of care and established
geotechnical engineering practice." The HOA never argued that Daubert

                                      7
precluded consideration of the report.3 The HOA never identified (or
proffered any evidence or testimony about) what factual data the Saxena
Report failed to consider, what geotechnical or engineering principle or
method it violated, or how the principles and methods it applied were
unreliable. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593; Kemp v. State, 280 So. 3d 81,
88-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Giaimo v. Fla. Autosport, Inc., 154 So. 3d 385,
387-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). And the circuit court did not provide any
findings or meaningful analysis to explain its determination that the
report should be stricken. See Cristin v. Everglades Corr. Inst., 310 So.
3d 951, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding that once a Daubert objection
was raised, the factfinder "had the responsibility to perform the
necessary analysis, make relevant supporting findings of fact, and issue
a ruling").
      The court's conclusion that the Saxena Report was based on
speculation was, itself, the product of speculation. From our de novo
review, it was improper to grant summary judgment in favor of the HOA.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) ("Credibility
determinations . . . are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . [when]

      3 The HOA simply argued, in generic and unspecified terms, that

the Saxena Report was "speculative and conclusory." We recognize that
"[t]he burden of proof to establish the admissibility of the expert’s
testimony is on the proponent of the testimony," Booker v. Sumter Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off./N. Am. Risk Servs., 166 So. 3d 189, 193 n.1 (citing Daubert,
509 U.S. at 592 n.10), but only where the testimony is properly
challenged, see Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Spearman, 320 So. 3d
276, 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Sanchez v. Cinque, 238 So. 3d 817, 823
(Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Baan v. Columbia County, 180 So. 3d 1127, 1131-
32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). But the HOA did not raise a proper Daubert
challenge, and the trial court did not conduct a proper Daubert analysis.
In reaching this conclusion, we do not determine—nor could we
determine on this record—whether Mr. Saxena’s opinions are admissible
under Daubert.
                                      8
ruling on a motion for summary judgment . . . ."); Ilias v. USAA Gen.
Indem. Co., 61 F.4th 1338, 1350 (11th Cir. 2023) ("[M]atters of credibility
are for a jury to settle at trial, not a trial court on summary judgment.");
see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135
(2000) ("[T]he court must review all of the evidence in the record, drawing
all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but making no
credibility determinations or weighing any evidence." (citations omitted)).
Therefore, we reverse the circuit court's summary judgment and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
     Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      9