A lawsuit recently filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court accuses a Miami-based interior design firm of systematically overbilling a client more than $6.3 million during a high-end renovation of a Palm Avenue residence in Miami Beach — and then refusing to hand over the vendor invoices that could prove or disprove the charges.
The complaint, filed July 16 by Ron Ozer as trustee of a Florida land trust, names Dida Home, LLC as the defendant and alleges breach of contract and fraud. The property at the center of the dispute is a private residence at 158 Palm Avenue in Miami Beach, comprising a main house and a separate guest house. Dida Home has not yet filed a response to the lawsuit, and the allegations are unproven and have not been tested in court.
How the relationship began
According to the complaint, Ozer hired Dida Home in October 2023 to handle the interior design of the main house, signing a contract that set a flat design fee of $72,000 for what was described as a complete schematic design phase, including execution, coordination, and supervision. A second contract followed in April 2024, covering the guest house and an outdoor rooftop terrace, at a flat fee of $45,000.
Both contracts, the complaint says, allowed Dida Home to add a 20 percent markup — but only on furniture and accessories. The agreements explicitly barred the firm from applying that surcharge to artwork or to raw construction materials. They also required Dida Home to pass all trade discounts from vendors directly through to the client.
From roughly October 2023 through January 2026, Ozer alleges he paid Dida Home a total of $6,331,275.78.
Where the trouble starts
The lawsuit alleges that around February 2026, while reviewing invoices he had already paid, Ozer discovered that Dida Home had been applying the 20 percent markup far beyond what the contracts permitted. According to the complaint, the firm charged the surcharge on artwork purchases, on raw construction materials, on shipping and handling fees paid to freight companies, and on storage costs — none of which were authorized under the agreements.
The complaint further alleges that Dida Home failed to pass along vendor discounts and charged incorrect sales tax amounts. The firm also allegedly kept money paid in advance for two items that were never delivered to the property and has not issued refunds.
But the most serious accusations in the filing involve what the complaint calls inflated and possibly falsified vendor invoices.
Two smoking-gun examples
The complaint points to two specific examples it says illustrate the alleged inflation scheme.
In the first, Ozer claims he was shown two different invoices for the exact same order placed with an Italian furniture maker — both bearing the same order number and date. One invoice totaled approximately €44,100, which the complaint says corresponded to the amount Dida Home charged Ozer for that purchase. The second version of the identical order showed a total of approximately €15,149 — a gap of roughly €29,000. Both documents are attached to the complaint as exhibits.
In the second example, the complaint describes a shipping invoice from a French design studio for the delivery of a chandelier to the Palm Avenue address. Dida Home allegedly billed Ozer $10,000 for the shipment and then applied its 20 percent markup on top of that figure. The problem, according to the complaint: the written-out payment amount on the face of the vendor's own invoice stated that $7,816 was owed — not $10,000.
A demand for records — and a refusal
The complaint says that beginning February 26, 2026, Ozer's attorneys sent Dida Home and its legal counsel repeated written demands for the original vendor invoices and documentation showing what Dida Home actually paid each supplier. According to the filing, Dida Home refused to produce those records, leaving Ozer unable to independently verify any of the charges. Those requests continued through at least June 30, 2026, the complaint states.
Ozer is represented by the Coral Gables law firm Rasco Klock & Nieto, P.A. The case is assigned Miami-Dade case number 2026-014289-CA-01 and is currently listed as open.
The complaint seeks money damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs, and attorneys' fees where applicable.
The full complaint is available here.
