ROOF STRUCTURES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RONNIE I. PICOU, JOYCE I. PICOU, AND SOUTHERN GROUTS & MORTARS, INC., 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.
Roof Structures, a sub-subcontractor, appealed a judgment denying enforcement of its mechanic's lien for failure to serve notice on the true general contractor. The court reversed, holding that the sub-subcontractor was entitled to rely on building department records when the owner failed to file a notice of commencement and the true contractor was not registered with the city.
The court held that Roof Structures was entitled to rely on building department records and that substantial compliance with the notice requirement had been achieved. The failure to serve the true contractor does not bar enforcement of the lien where the subcontractor made a reasonable effort to comply and the owner's actions caused detrimental reliance.
[1] Failure to serve a copy of the notice to owner on the true general contractor is a complete defense to the enforcement of a mechanic's lien.
[2] A sub-subcontractor may reasonably rely on building department records for the identity of the general contractor in the absence of contrary notice.
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“Mechanic's lien statutes are to be strictly construed.”
Establishes the foundational principle for interpreting mechanic's lien requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoof Structures, a sub-subcontractor, performed work on a construction project and sought to enforce a mechanic's lien. The sub-subcontractor served n…
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 Notice To Owner Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
This is an appeal by a sub-subcontractor, Roof Structures, Inc., from a judgment for the owner in a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien.. The judgment was based upon the failure of the sub-subcontractor to serve a copy of the notice to owner on the true general contractor, Construction Services Company, as required by section 713.-06(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The trial court relied upon Hardrives Co. v. Tri-County Concrete Products, Inc., 489 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), holding that the failure to serve the notice was a complete defense to enforcement of Roof Structures’ lien.
In this case Roof Structures did serve a copy of the notice to owner upon Radric Industrial Corp., a general contractor which had initially pulled the building permit for the construction, and the only contractor listed with the building department. There is no clear indication in the record why Construction Services Company had not registered with the city. The appellant’s contract was not directly with Construction Services. To make matters worse, the owner did not file a notice of commencement. As a result there was no notice to Roof Structures that it could not rely upon the building department records. We note that section 713.135(4), Florida Statutes, requires that the name and address of the contractor be provided in all building permit applications.
Mechanic’s lien statutes are to be strictly construed. Sheffield-Briggs Steel Products, Inc. v. Ace Concrete Service Co., 63 So. 2d 924 (Fla.1953). Nevertheless, good faith reasonable substantial compliance has been recognized as effective in cases where material acts or omissions by the owner have caused circumstances of detrimental reliance. Cf. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Delta Painting Corp., 529 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Gator Culvert Co. v. Snapp, 467 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Symons Corp. v. Tartan-Lavers Delray Beach, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Design Aluminum, Inc. v. DeSanti, 521 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); S & S Air Conditioning Co. v. Cantor, 343 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We conclude that Roof Structures, Inc. was entitled to rely upon the building department records in the absence of contrary notice. We do not consider this to conflict with Hardrives, as here there was a reasonable effort by the subcontractor to comply with the statute.
With respect to a second issue raised concerning compliance with the sworn statement requirement of section 713.16, Florida Statutes, it does not appear that the trial court has specifically ruled on the issue as presented. Nevertheless, we note that there is evidence to support a finding of substantial compliance with the statute, given the totality of the circumstances.
Therefore, the final judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
HERSEY, C.J., and WARNER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sasso AIR Conditioning, Inc. v. United Cos. Lending Corp., 742 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ddition, we have held that substantial compliance with the notice provisions of the statute is sufficient to maintain a valid lien, especially where acts or omissions by the owner have caused detrimental reliance. See Roof Structures, Inc. v. Picou, 544 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); see also Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Delta Painting Corp., 529 So. 2d 781, 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Reliance by the lienor on the imperfect notice of commencement filed by the owner constitutes detrimental relian…
-
Trump Endeavor 12 LLC v. Fernich, Inc., 216 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…are to be strictly construed ... good faith reasonable substantial compliance has been recognized as effective in cases where material acts or omissions by the owner have caused circumstances of detrimental reliance.” Roof Structures, Inc. v. Picou, 544 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). It is clear that until November 21, Paint Spot did in fact rely, to its detriment, upon the wrong NOC it received from Trump. But on that date, when Paint Spot received the email from Bravo regarding this error, Paint Spot was n…
-
Suchman v. Nat'l Hauling, Inc., 549 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…s favor. The basis of the ruling below, the failure to serve notice on the general contractor, as provided by section 713.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983),2 is, as the Fourth District has very recently held in Roof Structures, [*202] Inc. v. Picou, 544 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), completely negated on the record. This is because, like the owner in Roof Structures, Suehman did not file the notice of commencement required by section 713.-13, Florida Statutes (1983)3 until after the forty-five day period fo…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Symons Corp. v. Tartan-Lavers Delray Beach, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Sheffield-Briggs Steel Prods., Inc. v. Ace Concrete Serv. Co., Inc., 63 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1953)
- Hardrives Co. & St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Tri-County Concrete Prods., Inc., 489 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md. v. DELTA Painting Corp., 529 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- S & S AIR Conditioning Co. v. Cantor, 343 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Design Aluminum, Inc. v. DeSANTI, 521 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Gator Culvert Co. v. Dairell Snapp, 467 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)