DOUGLAS HEFLIN, D/B/A HARDEE COUNTY PLUMBING CO., APPELLANT,
v.
W. D. M. CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND COLAN L. TILLIS AND JERRY H. TILLIS, HIS WIFE, 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.
The court held that the trial court correctly determined that the lease agreement did not contemplate the improvements made, thus the mechanic's lien did not attach to the lessor's fee interest.
Hardee County Plumbing Co. (appellant) filed a claim of lien against W.D.M. Corp.'s property after performing repairs on a restaurant leased by the Ti…
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 Claim Of Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Hardee County Plumbing Co. appeals from the trial court’s ruling that its claim of lien did not attach to W.D.M. Corp.’s fee interest in certain property. Appellant had perfected the lien against the property, a restaurant leased by the Tillises from W.D.M. Corp., after the Tillises refused to pay for repairs made to the restaurant by Hardee County Plumbing. The trial court based its decision on section 713.10, Florida Statutes (1979). Section 713.10 provides that mechanics’ liens may be extended to the property interest of a lessor when the lessee makes improvements to the property pursuant to an agreement with the lessor. The written lease involved in this case is a very short, handwritten document that is silent as to improvements except those involving normal maintenance on the premises. Appellant introduced parol evidence at trial in an attempt to establish an agreement between the lessees and lessor such as is contemplated by section 713.10.
After hearing the evidence, the trial judge determined as a matter of fact that the agreement between the lessees and lessor “was not in the nature of the agreement contemplated by § 713.10, Florida Statutes.” Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Food Fair Properties Agency, Inc., 309 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), holds that to come within the terms of the statute the improvements must be “the pith of the lease” or the lease by its terms must require the work to be done. We cannot hold here that the trial judge abused his discretion in finding that the facts before him failed to meet that requirement.
After carefully examining the record, we have concluded that the trial judge should be affirmed; however, our obligation as a reviewing court was not eased by the failure of the appellee W.D.M. Corp. to appear in this proceeding to support the trial judge’s judgment. The final judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and DAN-AHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Food Fair Props. Agency, Inc., 309 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)