PILOT ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DEAN W. WATERS AND DON M. WATERS, APPELLEES
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.
Pilot Electrical Construction Company appealed a summary judgment denying its mechanics lien claim against property owners. The court affirmed, holding that the appellant failed to serve the required 45-day notice to the owner within the statutory period, and that an oral modification of the contract after 70% completion did not restart the notice deadline.
The court held that the oral modification did not start a new 45-day period. Because the work and materials were for essentially the same project at the same location, and commencement of work under the original agreement and building permits occurred more than 45 days before notice was served to the owner, the appellant failed to comply with the statutory requirement for perfecting its lien.
[1] A lienor not in privity with the owner must serve a 45-day notice to the owner as a prerequisite to perfecting a mechanics lien, regardless of the method of payment by th…
[2] Failure to serve the statutory 45-day notice to the owner is a complete defense to payment by any person, except a person with whom the lienor failing to serve the notice…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“must be served regardless of the method of payments by the owner, whether proper or improper, and shall not give to the lienor serving the notice any priority over other lienors in the same category, and the failure to serve the notice shall be a complete defense to payment by any person, except a person with whom the lienor failing to serve the notice has a contract.”
Sets forth the statutory requirement that notice must be served within 45 days to perfect a mechanics lien, establishing that failure to serve is a complete defense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePilot Electrical performed work on a project under a written contract with a general contractor, completing work under three building permits. Substan…
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.
LARRY G. SMITH, Judge.
The trial court was correct in granting summary judgment denying appellant’s mechanics lien claim. All work on the project, and the contract under which appellant commenced the furnishing of labor and materials on the job, post-dated the amendment to Section 713.06, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1978. As amended, that section provides that the 45-day notice to the owner, required as a prerequisite to the perfecting of a lien by persons not in privity with the owner,
. must be served regardless of the method of payments by the owner, whether proper or improper, and shall not give to the lienor serving the notice any priority over other lienors in the same category, and the failure to serve the notice shall be a complete defense to payment by any person, except a person with whom the lienor failing to serve the notice has a contract. .
This amendment was a categorical rejection of the decision in Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1969), which construed the former statute as establishing a “priority” category for lienors filing within the 45-day period, and allowing a “pro-rata” recovery for late filers to the extent of sums remaining due from the owner to the contractor. See Sarasota Commercial Refrigeration and Air Conditioning v. Schooley, 381 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.2nd DCA 1980).
Appellant’s contention that its oral modification of the written agreement with the general contractor, after seventy percent of the work had been completed, started a new 45-day period running is without merit. The work was commenced and completed under three building permits, pursuant to a written contract. The mere fact that sub stantial changes were made in the actual installation of electrical service and equipment did not alter the time sequence required for serving notice to the owner. The work and materials were for essentiaHy the same project, at the same location, and it is undisputed that commencement of the work, the original agreement and the building permits authorizing same, commenced considerably more than 45 days prior to appellant’s service of the notice to the owner. The statute is clear, and we find no genuine issue of material fact. The judgment, accordingly, is AFFIRMED.
MILLS, C. J., and SHIVERS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peninsular Supply Co. v. C.B. DAY Realty OF Fla., Inc., 423 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…lien, (emphasis supplied). . § 713.30, Fla.Stat. (1979) provides: This part I shall be cumulative to other existing remedies.... . Appellees cite two cases as supportive of their argument. In Pilot Electrical Construction Company, Inc. v. Waters, 384 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) plaintiffs who had not filed proper notice sought mechanics’ liens. The court properly construed the revised statute to reject the secondary type of statutory lien for late filers which had been recognized in Crane Co. v. Fine, 2…
-
WMS Constr., Inc. v. Palm Springs Mile Assocs., Ltd., 762 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…strued favorably so as to give laborers and suppliers the greatest protection compatible with justice and equity. See Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1969)(superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Pilot Elec. Constr. Co. v. Waters, 384 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA-1980)). In obtaining this protection a subcontractor must be certain it strictly complies with the statutory provisions by which it seeks affirmative relief. Kettles, 337 So. 2d 1012. One of the questions that a subcontractor must succ…
-
D.I.C. Commercial Constr. Corp. v. Knight Erection & Fabrication Inc., 547 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…later, he would automatically be barred from relying on the bond because of his earlier work on the project. We do not believe such results were intended by the legislature. The instant case is distinguishable from Pilot Elec. Const. Co. v. Waters, 384 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), relied upon by the appellants. The court in Waters held that an oral modification of a written contract after 70% of the work on the contract had been performed did not start a new forty-five day period for purposes of Section 2…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1969)
- Sarasota Commercial Refrigeration & AIR Conditioning, Inc. v. Schooley, 381 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)