BRICKELL BAY CLUB, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PANSY K. USSERY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AUBREY W. USSERY, DECEASED, AND ALVIN USSERY D/B/A USSERY'S CEMENT, APPELLEES; PANSY K. USSERY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AUBREY W. USSERY, DECEASED, AND ALVIN USSERY D/B/A USSERY'S CEMENT, APPELLANTS, V. BRICKELL BAY CLUB, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1982-06-15
Nos. 80-1441, 81-424 and 81-837
Before BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
417 So. 2d 692 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1982) Caution
Cited by 10 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

Brickell Bay Club, Inc. appealed a trial court judgment foreclosing a mechanic's lien filed by Ussery Cement Finishing Company for concrete work on a condominium project. The court affirmed the foreclosure and attorney's fees but reversed the trial court's denial of the lienor's motion to increase the security bond to cover the full judgment amount.


Holding

The court affirmed the amendment to the notice of lien, the foreclosure judgment, and the attorney's fees award. The court reversed the vacation of attorney's fees as to Weintraub Construction Co. and reversed the denial of the motion to increase the security bond, directing the trial court to increase the bond to cover the total amount awarded.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court may permit amendment of a claim of lien to set forth a different date for the last day work was performed, absent evidence of prejudice to the owner.

[2] A surety company is on notice that the amount of a bond transferring a mechanic's lien may be increased, as provided by statute.

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

Key Quotes

“All statutes in effect upon the date of the execution of a contract are a part of the contract.”

Establishes that the surety company was bound by statutory provisions allowing bond increases when it entered the undertaking.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In 1973, Brickell Bay Club, Inc. owned a condominium development project in Dade County, Florida. Samuel Weintraub, Inc. served as general contractor …

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
BARKDULL, Judge.

BARKDULL, Judge.

In 1973, Brickell Bay Club, Inc., as owner, was developing a condominium project in Dade County, Florida. The general contractor was Samuel Weintraub, Inc., d/b/a as Weintraub Construction Co. The general contractor employed Ussery Cement Finishing Company, which was a partnership of the Ussery brothers (one of whom is now deceased) to do certain of the concrete work on the project. On October 16,1975 Ussery filed a notice to owner and a mechanic’s lien.1 The lien was subsequently, prior to suit, transferred to bond pursuant to Section 713.24, Florida Statutes (1975). A foreclosure of lien action was commenced. At the final hearing the trial court permitted the claim of lien to be amended to set forth a different date as to the last day work was performed on the project. The trial court then entered a final judgment of foreclosure of mechanic’s lien, reserving the right to fix attorney’s fees and costs at a later hearing.

The owner appealed the final judgment of foreclosure in Case No. 80-1441. Subsequently, the trial court, upon various motions being filed, awarded attorney’s fees, interest and costs, and refused to increase the amount of the security bond. This ruling is the subject of appeal in Case No. 81-424. While this appeal was pending, Weintraub Construction Company, Inc. (not a party in the trial court) moved to clarify the order with respect to attorney’s fees and costs to show that it did not apply to it, alleging it was not formed until 1978, two years after the law suit began. The trial court granted this relief but went beyond the relief sought and vacated the award of attorney’s fees and costs as to Weintraub Construction Co. The plaintiffs then took an appeal from this order, which is filed under Case No. 81-837.2 We affirm the order of the trial court permitting an amendment to the notice of lien, no evidence as to prejudice having been tendered by the owner. Florida New Deal Co. v. Crane Co., 142 Fla. 471, 194 So. 865 (1940); Rapidek Industries, Inc. v. Summit Ins. Co. of New York, 318 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Adobe Brick and Supply Co. v. Centrex-Winston Corp., 270 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

We affirm the entry of the final judgment of foreclosure of the mechanic’s lien and sustain the award of attorney’s fees. We do reverse so much of the order that vacated the award of attorney’s fees against Weintraub Construction Co., and reinstate the original judgment in this regard.

As to the failure to increase the security bond to which the lien was transferred, we reverse. At the time the lien was transferred to bond, the statute authorizing the transfer read as follows:

713.24 Transfer of liens to security.—

(1) Any lien claimed under part I of this chapter may be transferred, by any person having an interest in the real property upon which the lien is imposed or the contract under which the lien is claimed, from such real property to other security by either:

(a) Depositing in the clerk’s office a sum of money, or

(b) Filing in the clerk’s office a bond executed as surety by a surety insurer licensed to do business in this state, either to be in an amount equal to the amount demanded in such claim of lien plus interest thereon at 6 percent per year for 3 years plus $100 to apply on any court costs which may be taxed in any proceeding to enforce said lien. Such deposit or bond shall be conditioned to pay any judgment or decree which may be rendered for the satisfaction of the lien for which such claim of lien was recorded and costs not to exceed $100. Upon making such deposit or filing such bond the clerk shall make and record a certificate showing the transfer of the lien from the real property to the security and mail a copy thereof by registered or certified mail to the lienor named in the claim of lien so transferred at the address stated therein. Upon filing the certificate of transfer the real property shall thereupon be released from the lien claimed and such lien shall be transferred to said security. The clerk shall be entitled to a fee for making and serving the certificate in the sum of $2. Any number of liens may be transferred to one such security.

The statutes further provided that the bond could be increased. See: Section 713.24(3), Florida Statutes (1975), which reads as follows:

(3) Any party having an interest in such security or the property from which the lien was transferred may at any time, and any number of times, file a complaint in chancery in the circuit court of the county where such security is deposited for an order to require additional security, reduction of security, change or substitution of sureties, payment or discharge thereof or any other matter affecting said security.

All statutes in effect upon the date of the execution of a contract are a part of the contract. Florida Fruit Company v. Shakelford, 145 Fla. 216, 198 So. 841 (1940); 22 Fla.Jur., Mechanics’ Liens § 19 (1982 Supp.). The surety company, Continental Casualty Company, at the time it entered into the undertaking transferring the lien to bond was on notice that the amount of the bond could be increased. Counsel urges that the trial court was correct in denying the increase in bond, relying on Schonfeld v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 392 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We find this case not to be controlling as it involved a request to increase a bond when the amount in question was still unliquidated. Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 371 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

In the instant case, all amounts due were liquidated at the time the trial judge en tered the order denying the motion to increase the bond, although it was apparent on the record that monies due the plaintiff exceeded the amount of the bond previously posted. Although the motion may have been premature when filed, it was timely when denied and the bond should have been increased to cover the total amount awarded. The lienor originally had a lien against a substantial asset, a multiple unit condominium development. The owner elected to transfer the lien to bond, the lienor was entitled to a bond sufficient to guaranty his payment the same as he would have been if the lien had not been transferred but remained an encumbrance against the real estate.3

Therefore, for the reasons above stated the final judgment of foreclosure, which is the subject matter of Case No. 80-1441, is affirmed. The order awarding attorney’s fees, which is the subject matter of'Case No. 81-424, is affirmed. The order striking Weintraub Construction Co. which is under consideration in Case No. 81-837, is reversed and vacated. The order refusing to increase the bond, which is also under ré-view in Case No. 81 — 424, be and the same is hereby reversed with directions to the trial court to further consider the motion to increase bond and to enter an appropriate order thereon.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, with directions.

. The mechanic’s lien law of 1975 is applicable to this case.

. The same record was used for all appeals, and the oral argument was consolidated and all three appeals are being disposed of by this opinion and decision.

. It is recognized, that it might be possible in some instances that the real estate would-be worth less than the claim, but this possibility should not prevent a full recovery against the substituted collateral in those situations like the instant case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Mesch v. Berry, 528 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
    …not prevent an award of an unsecured judgment for attorney’s fees against the owner of the real estate. See also Gulf Stream Pump and Equipment Co. v. Grosvenor Development, Inc., 487 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Brickell Bay Club, Inc. v. Ussery, 417 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The facts in the above cases are, however, distinguishable from those at bar. Symons involved an owner of real property who was also the general contractor, the developer of the construction project and the principal on the bond,…
  • CRC 603, LLC v. N. Carillon, LLC, 77 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
    …nstead merely procedural or remedial in nature), the 2006 contracts included, as a matter of law, those statutory provisions affecting the rights of the parties and applicable to the terms of their agreements. See, e.g., Brickell Bay Club v. Ussery, 417 So. 2d 692, 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“All statutes in effect upon the date of execution of a contract are a part of the contract.”). The buyers thus obtained, in 2006, enforceable rights to specific provisions regarding their deposits and regarding the voidabil…
  • Williams v. A & E Design, Inc., 538 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
    …o. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Section 713.24 does not, however, bar seeking an unsecured award of an attorney’s fee in excess of the statutory limit. Grosvenor does not state facts, so analysis is difficult. In Brickell Bay Club, Inc. v. Ussery, 417 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 426 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1983), the court, relying on Symons, held that the owner remained responsible. However, the owner in Brickell was the principal on the transfer bond. Also following Symons is Old General I…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw