Earlier this year, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a final judgment in favor of an interior designer who served as an owner’s representative and oversaw renovations at the owner’s condominium while he was out of the country. The appellate decision, and underlying trial court order, do a good job of showing how designers can distinguish themselves from contractors for the purpose of complying with licensing and construction lien laws.
In SG 2901, LLC v. Complimenti, Inc., the owner of a condominium unit hired an interior designer to decorate the unit. While the owner’s original plans called for only the polishing of the floors and some minor improvements to have the unit ready for occupancy, over time, the plans changed and required extensive renovations. When the interior designer told the owner he needed licensed professionals to perform this work, he said he was going to be traveling a lot and asked the designer to find the necessary people.
The interior designer did that, and held a meeting with the owner, a licensed general contractor licensed architect, and licensed HVAC contractor. During the meeting, it was made clear that the licensed professionals were to deal directly with the owner and that payments would come from the owner. As work progressed, the interior designer would regularly email the owner asking for his authorization with respect to the work at the project.
For her work, the interior designer was to be paid a total of 15% of the total renovation costs. But at the end of the project, the owner failed to pay the interior designer in full. The designer recorded a construction lien, and sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, foreclosure of the construction lien, foreclosure of an equitable lien, and promissory estoppel. The property owner countersued, claiming that the interior designer had acted as an unlicensed contractor and that he was entitled to a refund of all sums paid to her thus far. After a three day trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the interior designer and awarded her $181,377.38. The property owner appealed that judgment.
On appeal, the owner raised two arguments. The first was that the interior design was an unlicensed contractor, and therefore could not enforce its contract with the owner. The appellate court first looked at the definition of contractor, found in 489.105(3), Florida Statutes, which states that:
“Contractor” means the person who is qualified for, and is only responsible for, the project contracted for and means, except as exempted in this part, the person who, for compensation, undertakes to, submits a bid to, or does himself or herself or by others construct, repair, alter, remodel, add to, demolish, subtract from, or improve any building or structure, including related improvements to real estate, for others or for resale to others; and whose job scope is substantially similar to the job scope described in one of the paragraphs of this subsection.
The appellate court concluded that the evidence presented below supported the trial court’s findings that (1) the interior designer had not engaged in conduct that met that definition, but rather that the licensed general contractor on the project had performed that work, and (2) the interior designer’s job scope was “specifically limited to providing design/decorating services and acting as the point of contact in a representative or agency capacity on [the property owner’s] behalf.” This was further supported by the fact that the property owner himself, or the general contractor, had hired all the contractors or subcontractors on the project. Accordingly, the appellate court rejected the owner’s first argument.
The second argument raised on appeal by the owner was that the interior designer was not entitled to a lien. Because 713.03(1), Florida Statutes, grants lien rights to interior designers, and because interior designers do not need to be licensed under Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, to perform work on residential projects, the appellate court rejected this argument as well.
There are two critical takeaways for interior designers from this opinion. The first is that it is possible to oversee some aspects of construction and act as an owner’s representative while complying with the interior design licensing statute, the contractor licensing statute, and Florida’s construction lien law. A critical part of that compliance seems to be in ensuring that direct contracts and payments flow between the owner and the contractor, and not through the interior designer.
The second is interior designers must remain vigilant as projects shift and change. It can seem simple to let a project’s scope expand a little without bringing in other licensed professionals, but had the interior design in this case done that, the result would have been much different.
I also recommend reading the final judgment entered in this case. You can view it by clicking here. It does a great job of explaining in more detail than I have here exactly the type of work performed by everyone on the job and how the court came to conclude that the interior designer was entitled to payment.
Finally, interior designers should make sure that their contract documents spell out their scope of work and responsibilities clearly and also disclaim responsibility for work that falls under other licensing statutes. This can be very helpful if a dispute ever arises over the scope of work performed by an interior designer.