ASSOCIATED DISTRIBUTORS, INC., D/B/A WEST BUILDING MATERIALS, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY DELANEY MIX, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Associated Distributors appealed a judgment in a mechanic's lien foreclosure action, arguing it qualified as a materialman under Florida law and was entitled to foreclose a lien on the Mix property. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Associated was not a materialman because it merely supplied bulk materials to the contractor for use in various projects, rather than furnishing materials specifically for the Mix property.
Associated Distributors was not a materialman as defined by statute because it merely supplied bulk order materials such as appliances to the contractor for use in various construction projects, rather than furnishing materials specifically for the Mix property. Therefore, Associated was not entitled to the protections of the Mechanic's Lien Law and could not foreclose a lien on the property.
[1] A party is not a materialman entitled to the protections of the Mechanic's Lien Law if they furnish materials under contract to a contractor but perform no labor in the i…
[2] A trial court's finding based on conflicting evidence that a party is not a materialman will be accepted by an appellate court.
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“"Materialman" means any person who furnishes materials under contract to the owner, contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor on the site of the improvement or for direct delivery to the site of the improvement or for specially fabricated materials off the site of the improvement for the particular improvement, and who performs no labor in the installation thereof.”
Statutory definition of materialman that Associated must satisfy to foreclose a mechanic's lien
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAssociated Distributors supplied materials to Kahle-McCleese, Inc., a contractor that built a home for Mary Mix. When Associated did not receive payme…
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 Materialman cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
The plaintiff appeals in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. We affirm.
This case commenced when Associated Distributors (Associated) sued Mary Mix (Mix), Kahle-McCleese, Inc., Lance Kahle, and Lloyd McCleese to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on the Mix property. Kahle-McCleese had built a home for Mix using materials allegedly furnished by Associated. When Associated failed to receive payments due from Kahle-McCleese pursuant to a credit agreement, it filed a mechanic’s lien on the Mix property. The lien was in the amount of $9,337.66.
After a bench trial, it was determined that the amount due Associated was $5,310.00 and that it was owed by Kahle-McCleese. The court further found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any lien on the Mix property, that the lien actually filed was a “fraudulent” lien and that Mix was entitled to damages from Associated in the following amounts: compensatory damages in the amount of $1.00, punitive damages in the amount of $9,337.66, attorneys’ fees in the amount of $6,000.00, and costs.
On appeal, Associated alleges that the court erred in ruling it was not a material-man and thus not entitled to the protections of the Mechanic’s Lien Law. Section 713.-01(11), Florida Statutes (1981), defines a materialman:
(11) “Materialman” means any person who furnishes materials under contract to the owner, contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor on the site of the improvement or for direct delivery to the site of the improvement or for specially fabricated materials off the site of the improvement for the particular improvement, and who performs no labor in the installation thereof.
There was conflicting evidence presented at trial as to the nature of the activities of Associated. Competent evidence supported the view that Associated merely supplied the contractor with bulk order materials such as appliances which were in turn used by the contractor at its discretion in various different construction projects. The trial court’s conclusion, based on conflicting evidence, must be accepted by this court. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff was not a materialman as prescribed by statute.
We have reviewed the other issues raised on appeal and find no reversible error. AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur.