JOHNSON & BAILEY ARCHITECTS, P.C., APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHEAST BRAKE CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Johnson & Bailey Architects appealed the dismissal of its mechanic's lien foreclosure action against Southeast Brake Corporation. The trial court ruled the lien invalid because it was re-recorded outside the 90-day filing period and lacked a property description. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing with prejudice without allowing amendment and by failing to enforce the original lien despite statutory language permitting enforcement absent proof of adverse effect.
The trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice without affording a reasonable opportunity to amend. Additionally, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enforce the original August 8 lien, as Florida law permits enforcement of a lien despite omission of statutory details when the opposing party has not been adversely affected. The attorney's fees award was also improper because justiciable issues of law and fact existed.
[1] A trial court should afford a reasonable opportunity to amend a pleading unless amendment would result in prejudice to the opposing party.
[2] The omission of a legal description in a claim of lien does not prevent enforcement of the lien against a party not adversely affected by the omission.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Florida law is clear that a trial court should afford a reasonable opportunity to amend a pleading unless doing so would result in prejudice to the other party.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that dismissal with prejudice without allowing amendment is improper absent showing of prejudice to the opposing party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson & Bailey filed a mechanic's lien on August 8, 1985, for architectural services rendered to Windsor Woods, Ltd. (Southeast's predecessor) on tw…
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 Justiciable Issue Of Law Or Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Johnson & Bailey Architects, P.C. (Johnson & Bailey), appeal a final order dismissing with prejudice its complaint against Southeast Brake Corporation (Southeast) and an award of attorney’s fees against the firm and counsel. We reverse.
Johnson & Bailey sued to foreclose a mechanic’s lien originally filed on August 8, 1985 for services rendered to Windsor Woods, Ltd., Southeast’s predecessor in interest on two development properties in Pasco County. Although the lien as then recorded identified the contract out of which the claim arose, it did not include a description of the property as required under § 713.08(l)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985).
The lien was re-recorded on August 26 to include a legal description of the properties for which services were rendered. Finding the August 26 recordation beyond the ninety-day filing period allowed after the last furnishing of services or materials, the court ruled the lien invalid and dismissed the suit with prejudice. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to Southeast under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1986).
We find that it was error to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Florida law is clear that a trial court should afford a reasonable opportunity to amend a pleading unless doing so would result in prejudice to the other party. Town of Coreytown v. State, 60 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1952); Adams v. Knabb Turpentine Co., Inc., 435 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Losar Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Reid v. Reid, 396 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
See also Rule 1.190, Fla.R.Civ.P. This was argued on rehearing and the court apparently agreed that the dismissal should have been entered with leave to amend, but nevertheless failed to vacate the original order. We also find error in the failure to enforce the August 8th claim of lien. Although that claim failed to attach a legal description of the property, section 713.-08(4)(a) Florida Statutes, clearly states that “the omission of the foregoing details or errors [i.e., legal description] in such claim of lien shall not, within the discretion of the trial court, prevent the enforcement of such lien as against one who has not been adversely affected by such omission or error.”
Although Johnson & Bailey argued on rehearing that there had been no showing of adverse effect, the trial court required no evidentiary hearing on this issue.
We find this was an abuse of the court’s discretion. While technical fulfillment of statutory components in a claim of lien are desirable, the lack of such a component cannot form the basis of a denial of enforcement of the lien where the lienor has otherwise substantially complied with the requisites. Mid-State Contractors, Inc. v. Halo Development Corp., 342 So. 2d 1078 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Southeast contends that the failure to include a description of the property when the lien was originally recorded was failure to substantially comply with the lien law. We cannot accept this argument in light of the clear language of 713.08(4)(a) that an omission will not defeat the lien without a showing of prejudice. See also Adobe Brick and Supply Co. v. Centex-Winston Corp., 270 So. 2d 755 (Fla.3d DCA 1972).
We note also that as the lien did reference the contract from which it arose, it is unlikely that Southeast was unable to identify the subject property. See J.R. Fenton, Inc. v. Gallery 600, Inc., 488 So. 2d 587 (Fla.2d DCA 1986).
It was also error to award Southeast attorney’s fees under § 57.105. Such an award is appropriate only where the losing party has failed to raise any justiciable issue of either law or fact. Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corporation, 508 So. 2d 340 (1987). We find no absence of such issues in the case at bar. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and the award of attorney’s fees, and remand to the trial court with instructions that Johnson & Bailey be given leave to amend its complaint.
Reversed and remanded.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stunkel v. Gazebo Landscaping Design, Inc., 660 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1995)…ng that a claim of lien could be enforced without stating the specific amount owed and remanding to the trial court to determine if the lienee was adversely affected by the omission). .See Johnson & Bailey Architects, P.C. v. Southeast Brake Corp., 517 So. 2d 776, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (holding that an architectural firm could amend claim of lien to include appropriate property description and that lien would be enforceable absent showing of adverse affect on the lienee).…
-
Karn v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Est., Inc., 705 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…abused its discretion in failing to grant Earn and Michael leave to amend their complaint, a request they sought by way of motion for rehearing before final summary judgment was entered. See Johnson & Bailey Architects P.C. v. Southeast Brake Corp., 517 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). “As a general [*681] rule, refusal to allow amendment of a pleading constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party; the privilege to amend has been abus…
-
SAM Rodgers Props., Inc. v. Chmura, 61 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…A 1989), held that “when seeking to enforce an untimely amended lien, the lienor may resort to a timely recorded lien, albeit one with errors, if there is no prejudice to the other party.” See also Johnson Bailey Architects, P.C. v. Se. Brake Corp., 517 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (reversing trial court’s failure to enforce the original claim of lien even though it contained an omission where there was no showing of prejudice). Here, it is uncontroverted that the original claim of lien for $169,926 was tim…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1987)
- Adams v. Knabb Turpentine Co., Inc., 435 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Lewis v. State, 396 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Town of Coreytown v. State Ex Rel. Ervin, 60 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1952)
- Aurelio Martinez v. State, 270 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Mid-State Contractors, Inc. v. Halo Dev. Corp., 342 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- J.R. Fenton, Inc. v. Gallery 600, Inc., 488 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)