QUALITY GLASS AND MIRROR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN C. RITCH, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CORPORATION, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1979-08-09
No. MM-337
MILLS, C. J., and ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
373 So. 2d 723 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1979) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The appellate court reversed a judgment against a surety on a bond for a mechanic's lien, finding that the subcontractor failed to prove the necessary prerequisites for enforcing the lien, even after it was transferred to the bond.


Holding

A subcontractor must prove all prerequisites for enforcing a mechanic's lien, even when the lien has been transferred to a bond, and failure to do so means the claimant cannot recover against the surety.


Facts & Procedural History

A subcontractor filed a lien against a property after leaving a job. The general contractor transferred the lien to a bond, with the appellant surety …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees Ritch and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Corporation on the ground that their performance and payment bond was a statutory bond pursuant to Section 255.05, Florida Statutes (1977), and that appellant, plaintiff below, filed his complaint alleging nonpayment for materials after the statutory one year limitation period on actions had expired. We hold that even though this bond contained provisions not required by Section 255.05, the bond must be considered statutory and not common law, which would be subject to a longer limitation period, because the bond did not expand the payment provisions beyond those stated in Section 255.05.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, C. J., and ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …. of North America, 456 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Standard Heating; Southwest Florida Water Management Dist. ex rel. Thermal Acoustic Corp. v. Miller Constr. Co., Inc., 355 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Quality Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. Ritch, 373 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (holding that even though a bond contained provisions not required by statute, it must be considered statutory and not common law because the bond did not expand the payment provisions beyond those stated in statute), cert. denie…
  • …ed Bonding Insurance Co. v. City of Holly Hill, 249 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). When the sureties’ obligations have not been extend [*1252] ed beyond minimum requirements, the bond remains a statutory bond. Quality Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. Ritch, 373 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert, denied, 385 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1980). The primary test in determining whether a bond is a statutory bond or a common law bond depends upon an examination of the obligations imposed upon the principal and its surety. The test…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw