SITE-PREP, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ABDUR RAZZAK TAI, AN INDIVIDUAL, 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.
This case clarifies how to calculate the sixty-day period for enforcing a lien after a notice of contest is served. The court held that the date of service should be excluded when computing this period, reversing the trial court's decision.
No, the sixty-day time period for enforcing a lien after service of a notice of contest does not include the date of service. The uniform rule for computing time periods is to exclude the first day.
[1] When computing a statutory time period, the first day of the period is excluded and the last day is included.
[2] A lien is extinguished if a suit to enforce it is not instituted within sixty days after service of a notice of contest of lien.
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“The issue on this appeal is whether the date of service is counted in computing the sixty-day time period in section 713.22(2), Florida Statutes (1983).”
States the central legal question of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSite-Prep, Inc. was served with a notice of contest of lien on August 1, 1983. They filed their complaint to enforce the lien on September 30, 1983, w…
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 Computation Of Time Periods cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
The issue on this appeal is whether the date of service is counted in computing the sixty-day time period in section 713.22(2), Florida Statutes (1983). That section provides, in relevant part:
... The lien of any lienor upon whom such notice [Notice of Contest of Lien] is served and who fails to institute a suit to enforce his lien within sixty days after service of such notice shall be extinguished automatically. The clerk shall mail a copy of the Notice of Contest to the lien claimant at the address shown in the claim of lien or most recent amendment thereto and shall certify to such service on the face of such notice and record the notice. Service shall be deemed complete upon mailing. (Emphasis added.)
The facts are undisputed that the plaintiff in this case, Site-Prep, Inc., was served with the defendant’s notice of contest of lien on August 1, 1983, and that the plaintiff filed his complaint on September 30, 1983, sixty days after the date of service, and sixty-one days later if the date of service is included. We are not concerned in the instant case with any problem involving holidays or weekends.
The trial court agreed with the defendant that the aforesaid sixty-day period included the date of service, struck the complaint and discharged the defendant from liability. This was error. The uniform rule in computing time periods is that the first day of the period is excluded from the computation, and the last day is included. McMillen v. Hamilton, 48 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1950); Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407, 3 So. 2d 165 (1941); Zentmeyer v. Ford Motor Co., 464 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Johnson v. Mortgage Investors of Washington, 410 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Koehler Electrical Supply Co. v. Berkley, 362 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Moorey v. Eytchison & Hoppes, Inc., 338 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). See also Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.090(a) and H. Trawick, Florida Practice & Procedure § 8-24 (1984 ed.).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1941)
- Moorey v. Eytchison & Hoppes, Inc., 338 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Johnson v. Mortg. Invs. OF Wash., 410 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Koehler Elec. Supply Co., Inc. v. Berkley, 362 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Zentmeyer v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 464 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)