STATE-WIDE CONSTRUCTION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CLAUDE M. DOWDA AND DONALD N. COOPER, APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 1982-09-08
No. 81-1535
COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.
418 So. 2d 1238 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 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

State-Wide Construction appeals the dismissal of a mechanic's lien foreclosure action, raising a case of first impression regarding whether mailing an affidavit to the owner satisfies the statutory requirement to 'deliver' it at least 5 days before filing suit under Florida's mechanic's lien statute.


Holding

The court held that evidence of proper posting of the affidavit in the mail at least 5 days before filing suit constitutes compliance with the statutory delivery requirement. The court reasoned that this interpretation ensures actual notice is given and, assuming timely mail delivery, the owner receives it, while avoiding the hardship of requiring contractors to prove personal delivery.


Headnotes

[1] A contractor must deliver an affidavit to the owner at least 5 days before instituting an action to enforce a lien.

[2] Evidence of proper posting of an affidavit in the mail at least 5 days before filing suit constitutes compliance with the statutory requirement for delivery to the owner.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

“The contractor shall execute the affidavit and deliver it to the owner at least 5 days before instituting an action as a prerequisite to the institution of any action to enforce his lien under this chapter”

Sets forth the statutory requirement at issue in the case regarding the delivery of the affidavit

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

State-Wide Construction mailed an executed affidavit to the owner five days before filing a mechanic's lien foreclosure action. The owner received the…

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
DAUKSCH, Judge.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action.

This is a case of first impression and we are asked to interpret the meaning of “deliver” as it is meant in section 713.-06(3)(d)(l):

The contractor shall give to the owner an affidavit stating, if that be the fact, that all lienors under his direct contract have been paid in full or, if the fact be otherwise, showing the name of each lienor who has not been paid in. full and the amount due or to become due each for labor, services, or materials furnished. The contractor shall have no lien or right of action against the owner for labor, services, or materials furnished. The contractor shall have no lien or right of action against the owner for labor, services, or materials furnished under the direct contract while in default for not giving the owner the affidavit. The contractor shall execute the affidavit and deliver it to the owner at least 5 days before instituting an action as a prerequisite to the institution of any action to enforce his lien under this chapter, even if the final payment has not become due because the contract is terminated for a reason other than completion and regardless of whether the contractor has any lienors working under him or not.

Five days before filing suit appellant mailed the executed affidavit to the owner. The owner received it in the mail 4 days before suit was filed. The question is whether mailing satisfies the statutory requirement.

Before the statute was amended in 1963 it provided merely that the affidavit must be delivered to the owner before suit could be filed. (3) When final payment becomes due the contractor from the owner, the contractor shall give to the owner a statement under oath stating, if that be the fact, that all lienors contracting directly with or directly employed by such contractor have been paid in full or, if the fact be otherwise, showing the name of each such lienor who has not been paid in full and the amount due or to become due each for labor or services performed or materials furnished and describing in a general way such labor, services, or materials. The contractor shall have no lien or right of action against the owner for labor or services performed or materials furnished under his contract while in default by reason of not giving the owner such statement under oath.

See. 84.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1961).

There was no requirement for a five day notice in the previous statute and we do not know why the statute was changed in this way. We sought to obtain the minutes or committee notes or transcripts of hearing in the legislature to see why the 5 day period was inserted. We could not get them.

In trying to discern the reason for the insertion of the five day period we have considered various possibilities. The most logical seems to be that the legislature intended to allow time for mailing while at the same time allowing sufficient time for the owner to pay before suit is filed.1

Both counsel have presented and we realize there are good arguments on both sides so we are put into the position of having to opt for what we deem to be the fairest for all parties. It is our holding that evidence of proper posting in the mail of the affidavit at least 5 days before filing suit is compliance with the statute. That way notice is actually given, and assuming the mails are delivered timely, received. If we were to rule the other way then a contractor in a position of jeopardy vis-a-vis a financially sinking owner may have to try to effect, and prove, a personal delivery.

The order dismissing the foreclosure action is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. . Most likely all first-year law students learned in "Contracts I” that acceptance of an offer is effected when the letter containing the acceptance is properly posted in the mails.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State-Wide Constr., Inc. v. Dowda, 424 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
    …e of the lis pendens. The respondents argue the lis pendens must fall because the lower court dismissed the foreclosure suit. However, this ground has been superseded by this court’s reversal of the dismissal. State-Wide Construction, Inc. v. Dowda, 418 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Respondents further argue the dismissal was proper because the mechanic’s lien was “transferred” from the real property to a surety bond pursuant to section 713.24(1), Florida Statutes (1981),3 three weeks before petitioner fil…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw