W. N. ROBBINS ELECTRIC, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
INTERCONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., APPELLEE
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.
A claimant alleging a lien under Section 713.06 must serve notice or allege excuse, and a claim under Section 713.05 requires privity with the owner.
Appellant filed a defective claim of lien against appellee. The trial court entered a final judgment discharging the lien after a non-jury trial.…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
[*22] PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment entered below discharging the appellant’s defective claim of lien against the appellee. Although the Mechanic’s Lien Law1 should be liberally construed to protect the laborer and the materialman,2 this should not excuse a claimant from failing to comply with the provisions of the law.
A claimant alleging a claim of lien under Section 713.06, Florida Statutes (1977) must serve a notice of lien upon the owner, or his complaint must contain sufficient allegations to excuse the failure to serve notice. Bishop v. James A. Knowles, Inc., 292 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Approved Dry Wall Construction Co. v. Morgan Properties, Inc., 263 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). A complaint alleging a claim of lien under Section 713.05, Florida Statutes (1977), while not requiring notice by the claimant, must contain an allegation that the claimant was in privity with the owner at the time of the claim. Although appellant’s amended complaint did not specify under which provision of the statute it intended to proceed with its claim of lien, we find that its claim is deficient whether filed under Section 713.05 or Section 713.06.
After conducting a non-jury trial on the propriety of appellant’s lien, the trial court entered a final judgment discharging the lien. There was competent substantial evidence in the record to support that determination.
Affirmed.
. Ch. 713, Part I, Fla.Stat. (1977).
. Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1969); Mid-State Contractors, Inc. v. Halo Development Corp., 342 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Centex-Winston Corporation v. Crown Paint, Inc., 294 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Kon & Co., Inc. v. Riedel, 540 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ly decision of the Florida Supreme Court, the lien does not exist. Biscayne Trust Company v. Wolpert Realty & Improvement Company, et. al., 100 Fla. 1070, 130 So. 611, 613 (1930). See also W.N. Robbins Electric, Inc. v. Intercontinental Group, Inc., 374 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). However, we find that the circumstances and ambiguities involved in this case preclude it from being susceptible to a partial summary judgment with respect to the validity of the underlying contract at the time the order appeale…
-
Banner Supply Co. v. Habitat 1 Constr. Corp., 519 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…R CURIAM. Affirmed. Vaughn v. Smith, 96 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1957); Hobbs Construction and Development, Inc. v. Presbyterian Homes of Synod of Florida, 440 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1st [*2] DCA 1983); W.N. Robbins Electric, Inc. v. Intercontinental Group, Inc., 374 So. 2d 21 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Jaquin-Florida Distilling Company v. Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Architects-Engineers-Planners, Incorporated, 319 So. 2d 604 (Fla.1st DCA 1975); Palmer v. Thomas, 284 So. 2d 709 (Fla.lst DCA 1973); Sections 713.06(2)(a) and 713.31(…
Authorities Cited
- Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1969)
- Vance D. Bishop and Joseph F. Putnam v. James A. Knowles, Inc., 292 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Mid-State Contractors, Inc. v. Halo Dev. Corp., 342 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Centex-Winston Corp. v. Crown Paint, Inc., 294 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Approved DRY Wall Constr., Inc. v. Morgan Props., Inc., 263 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)