A Viera Builders lawsuit search turns up several distinct threads in Brevard County and Miami-Dade County courts: a cluster of homeowner construction defect cases centered on allegedly faulty stucco installation, a contract dispute, an employment discrimination complaint, and a class action over roof shingles used in homes the company sold. Most of the stucco cases were filed in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court between 2024 and 2026, and several remain open as of mid-2026.
The Stucco Defect Cases
The through-line in the homeowner suits is stucco. Buyers allege that Viera Builders homes were built with stucco systems that were installed improperly and in violation of the Florida Building Code.
Gill v. Viera Builders
Daniel R. Gill and Amy M. Gill sued Viera Builders on July 28, 2025, over a home conveyed to them in September 2018. Their complaint alleges an “inadequately and improperly installed stucco system” that violates the Florida Building Code and two ASTM industry standards for stucco application, ASTM C 926 and ASTM C 1063. Viera Builders moved to stay the case in August 2025, and Judge Curt Jacobus granted the stay on September 17, 2025. The parties filed a notice of compliance on December 3, 2025. The case remains open.1UniCourt. Daniel R. Gill vs. Viera Builders
Sperry v. Viera Builders
Jason Sperry filed a construction defect suit against the company on March 12, 2024, before Judge Scott Blaue. The publicly available filings do not spell out the specific allegations, but the case was classified as a construction defect matter. A February 2026 jury trial was cancelled, Sperry filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on February 25, 2026, and the court entered a final dismissal order on April 21, 2026. The disposition was recorded as a dismissal due to settlement.2UniCourt. Jason Sperry vs. Viera Builders
More Homeowner Filings in 2025 and 2026
The pace has not slowed. Daniel Kosters filed a construction defect case on October 8, 2025, and Paul Germain filed another on May 5, 2026, both in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit.1UniCourt. Daniel R. Gill vs. Viera Builders
Viera Builders’ Own Suit Against Its Stucco Subcontractors
Viera Builders is not only a defendant on the stucco issue. On December 15, 2021, the company itself filed a construction defect lawsuit against several subcontractors, with Extreme Plastering Stucco, Inc. as the primary defendant. The other named parties were DAB Painting Brevard, Regal Custom Painting, Heritage Custom Painting, Pro Build East, and Keith Bennett Construction. Judge George T. Paulk was assigned the case, and it was dismissed in February 2023 following mediation. Several of these same subcontractors appear repeatedly in Viera Builders construction defect litigation.3UniCourt. Viera Builders vs. Extreme
Taylor v. Viera Builders: Contract Dispute
Gregory S. Taylor and Jennifer E. Taylor sued Viera Builders on June 10, 2024, in a case Judge Scott A. Blaue is presiding over. Unlike the stucco cases, this one was classified as a “General Creditor” matter under the contract and indebtedness heading, and the Taylors demanded a jury trial. Viera Builders moved to dismiss in August 2024, and the court ordered the case stayed on November 25, 2024. Joshua M. Zudar represents the Taylors; Kimberly E. Young represents Viera Builders.4Trellis Law. G Taylor vs Viera Builders
Mead v. Viera Builders: Employment Discrimination
Mary Mead filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Viera Builders on August 20, 2025, in Brevard County. The verified complaint seeks damages exceeding $50,000, demands a jury trial, and is classified as a “Discrimination Employment/Other” matter. Judge Kristen Smith-Rodriguez is assigned. Allison McCabe and Susanne D. McCabe represent Mead. Court records tied to the filing reference a Viera Builders job posting for a Director of Sales position, which suggests a possible connection to Mead’s role at the company, though the specific discrimination allegations are not publicly detailed. The case remains pending with no reported rulings or dispositive motions.5Trellis Law. Mead vs. Viera Builders Complaint
Ressler v. Tamko: Roofing Class Action
On June 5, 2026, Aaron Ressler filed a class action in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County naming both Tamko Building Products, LLC and Viera Builders as co-defendants. The complaint alleges that Tamko Heritage Series roof shingles used in homes sold by Viera Builders were defective at the time of manufacture. According to the complaint, the shingles were marketed as durable and reliable but were in fact “unsafe, unreliable, create hazards, cause damage, and fail to properly protect” the homes of Ressler and the proposed class.6Trellis Law. Ressler v. Tamko Building Products Complaint The suit seeks damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees for all similarly situated homeowners.
Why So Many of These Cases Are Stayed
Florida law requires homeowners to complete a mandatory pre-suit process before pursuing a construction defect claim. Under Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes, the homeowner must serve written notice of the defect on the responsible contractor at least 60 days before filing suit. The contractor then gets to inspect the property and propose repairs or a settlement. If a lawsuit is filed before that process is complete, the court is required to stay the case. That likely explains the stays entered in the Gill and Taylor cases.
Homeowners generally have four years from discovering a defect to sue, subject to an absolute seven-year deadline from the completion of construction. Florida law also provides a separate cause of action under Section 553.84 for damages caused by building code violations, provided the homeowner gives the contractor notice and a chance to fix the problem. Remedies can include repair costs, related property damage, temporary housing expenses, diminished home value, and in many cases attorney’s fees.
Complaints Outside of Court
Beyond the litigation, Viera Builders has received six Better Business Bureau complaints in the past three years, covering warranty repairs, drainage and grading, flooring quality, a deposit refund, and a sales incentive. All six are marked “Answered,” meaning the company responded but the consumers did not confirm the resolution. In its responses, the company has said its actions align with its contracts, internal policies, and homeowner manual. In one drainage case, it told the homeowner that ongoing site maintenance was their responsibility. In another, the company declined to allow an independent inspector to evaluate the work and relied on its own internal review instead.7BBB. Viera Builders Inc. BBB Complaints Viera Builders is not BBB-accredited but holds an “A” rating.8BBB. Viera Builders Inc. BBB Profile