J. BATTEN CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
OAKRIDGE INVESTMENTS 85, LTD., 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.
J. Batten Corporation appealed a final judgment dismissing its mechanic's lien, breach of contract, and fraud claims against Oakridge Investments after the trial court refused to allow amendment of the complaint to allege service of a contractor's affidavit. The appellate court reversed on the mechanic's lien and breach of contract counts but affirmed the dismissal of the fraud claim.
The court reversed as to the mechanic's lien and breach of contract counts, holding that the failure to deliver a contractor's affidavit is not a fatal jurisdictional defect and that an amended complaint may be filed to show delivery of the affidavit when the statute of limitations has not run. The court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud count but reversed the dismissal of the breach of contract count because the court had jurisdiction to hear that claim independently of the mechanic's lien count.
[1] A trial court should allow a party to amend its complaint to allege service of a contractor's affidavit, even if the original affidavit was insufficient, provided the sta…
[2] The failure to deliver a contractor's affidavit is not a fatal jurisdictional defect for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.
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“the failure to deliver a contractor's affidavit was not a fatal jurisdictional defect and that an amended complaint may be filed to show delivery of the contractor's affidavit, provided that the statute of limitations has not run prior to the filing of the amended complaint”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Holding Electric that allows amendment to cure contractor's affidavit defects
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1987, Batten was hired by Oakridge to construct a restaurant on Oakridge's property in Orlando. Batten filed a lien claim in January 1988 for $82,5…
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 Amendment Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Judge.
J. Batten Corporation appeals a final judgment in favor of Oakridge Investments 85, Ltd., and others (Oakridge) in an action for a mechanic’s lien, breach of contract and fraud. Judgment was entered after the trial court refused to allow Batten to amend its complaint to allege service of a contractor’s affidavit and dismissed the remaining counts with prejudice. We reverse as to the mechanic’s lien and breach of contract counts and remand for further proceedings.
In 1987, Batten was hired by Oakridge to construct a restaurant on property owned by Oakridge in Orlando. On January 7, 1988, Batten filed a claim of lien against Oakridge claiming that $82,593.00 remained unpaid. On January 29, 1988, Batten filed suit against Oakridge in three counts. In count I, Batten sought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien in the amount of $82,593.00. Count II was an action for breach of the construction contract and count III was an action for fraud and punitive damages. As to this count, Batten alleged that in September 1987, Oakridge had refused to pay for work done by Batten and then induced Batten to complete construction based on Oakridge’s fraudulent representation that it would pay the amount due under the contract.
The complaint was later amended in April 1988. In June 1988, Oakridge filed a motion for summary judgment alleging in part that Batten had failed to furnish a proper contractor’s affidavit and therefore was not entitled to final payment. Although Batten maintained that the contractor’s affidavit it had filed was sufficient, on June 30th Batten moved for leave to file an amended complaint which reflected service of a subsequent contractor’s affidavit. The trial court refused to allow Batten to amend its complaint and dismissed the remaining counts with prejudice.
As its first point on appeal, Batten argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow it to amend its complaint to include a proper contractor’s affidavit and then to enter summary judgment in favor of Oak-ridge.
In Holding Electric, Inc. v. Roberts, 530 So. 2d 301 (Fla.1988), the Florida Supreme Court held that the failure to deliver a contractor’s affidavit was not a fatal jurisdictional defect and that an amended complaint may be filed to show delivery of the contractor’s affidavit, provided that the statute of limitations has not run prior to the filing of the amended complaint. See also Coquina Ltd. v. Nicholson Cabinet Company, 509 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Shores of Indian River, Inc. v. Gart Urban Associates, Inc., 478 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); McMahan Construction Co. v. Carol’s Care Center, 460 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Since Batten’s claim of lien was filed in January 1988, the statute of limitations had not expired1 and accordingly the trial court should have allowed the amendment. The trial court’s reasons for refusing to allow the amendment, that is, that there was no excusable neglect and that Batten’s counsel had maintained that he had properly filed an affidavit, are not sufficient in light of the liberal policy of allowing amendments. See Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.190.
Batten also argues that the trial court erred in dismissing count II of its complaint which alleged breach of contract by Oakridge. In McMahan Construction Co. v. Carol’s Care Center, we held that the trial court erred in dismissing a count for breach of contract because the court clearly had jurisdiction to hear that matter even if the mechanic’s lien count had been properly dismissed. Likewise, here the trial court should not have dismissed the count against Oakridge for breach of contract. See also § 713.30, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Finally, Batten argues that the trial court erred in dismissing count III for fraud and punitive damages. We conclude that this count was properly dismissed. See AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 515 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1987); Lewis v. Guthartz, 428 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1982); John Brown Automation, Inc. v. Nobles, 537 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur. . See § 713.22, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hanley v. Kajak, 661 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…vestments, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 250 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), we affirm the award of money damages of $2,400 against the Hanleys based on the trial court’s findings of privity. See generally J. Batten Corp. v. Oakridge Inv. 85, Ltd., 546 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). However, we reverse the determination that the lien was valid and accordingly also reverse the award of statutory attorney’s fees against the Hanleys pursuant to section 713.29. See M &P Concrete Prods., Inc. v. Woods, 590 So. 2…
-
Interstate Sec. Corp. v. Hayes Corp., 920 F.2d 769 (11th Cir. 1991)…doctrine bars the negligence claims in this case, it would also bar the fiduciary duty claim. We examined all of the Florida cases that have applied AFM to other tort claims. That research disclosed a case, J. Batten Corp. v. Oakridge Inv. 85, Ltd., 546 So. 2d 68 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989), which indicates that the instant fiduciary duty claim is barred. In J. Batten, a general contractor sued the property owner in a construction project under a mechanic’s lien and asserted additional claims for breach of contr…
-
Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., 944 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1996)…v. Nobles, 537 So.2d 614, 617-618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (striking punitive damages for fraud where the misrepresentation was “inextricable from the events constituting a breach of contract”); J. Batten Corp. v. Oakridge Investments 85[J Ltd., 546 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (dismissing fraud claim in breach of contract case). No Florida case that we can find has expressly held that true fraudulent inducement does not come within the ambit of the economic loss rule. One Florida appellate court, h…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- AFM Corp. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 515 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1987)
- Lewis v. Barnett Guthartz, 428 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1982)
- John Brown Automation, Inc. v. Nobles, 537 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Holding Elec., Inc. v. Roberts, 530 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1988)
- McMAHAN Constr. Co., Inc. v. Carol's Care Ctr., Inc., 460 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Coquina, Ltd. v. Nicholson Cabinet Co., 509 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Siegel v. Se. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 478 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- The Shores OF Indian River, Inc. v. Gart Urban Assocs., Inc., 478 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)