FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
LA CENTRE TRUCKING, INC., 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.
Fidelity and Deposit Company, as surety on a property bond, appealed a summary judgment upholding a mechanic's lien filed by La Centre Trucking. The court affirmed the lien's validity based on proper notice to the property owner, but remanded to correct the judgment by striking provisions for costs, fees, and interest that exceeded the bond amount.
Service of notice on the Baumann Organization constituted sufficient notice to the actual property owner, Stanley Baumann, under the facts presented, properly perfecting the mechanic's lien. However, the trial court erred by including costs, fees, and post-judgment interest in the judgment, as the surety's liability cannot exceed the amount of the bond posted.
[1] Service of a notice to owner on an agent of the property owner constitutes sufficient notice to the property owner if the agent was acting on behalf of the owner for the…
[2] A property owner may be deemed to have received notice of a mechanic's lien when the notice is served on an organization that is acting as the owner's agent and is design…
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 undisputed proof of service of the notice on the Baumann Organization constituted sufficient notice, under the facts of this case, to Stanley Baumann, the actual property owner and sole owner of the Baumann Organization”
Establishes that notice to the organization acting as agent was sufficient to perfect the 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 intelligenceLa Centre Trucking filed a mechanic's lien against property owned by Stanley Baumann. Fidelity and Deposit Company was the surety on the property bond…
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 Proof Of Service cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the surety of the property owner, challenges the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on a mechanic’s lien because the lien was not properly perfected by service of a notice to owner. We affirm. We agree with the trial court that the undisputed proof of service of the notice on the Baumann Organization constituted sufficient notice, under the facts of this case, to Stanley Baumann, the actual property owner and sole owner of the Bau-mann Organization. Baumann’s deposition makes it clear that he and the organization did business out of the same office and that the Baumann Organization was acting as his agent for the development in question. Importantly, he conceded that a procedure for the receipt and disposition of notices to owner was established for the project and receipt of the notice in question was received pursuant to that procedure. In addition, it appears from the exhibits attached to the answer filed to appellee’s claim, that the Baumann Organization was designated and signed contracts as the owner of the property being developed. On less clear facts we approved service in Symons Corp. v. Tartan-Lavers Delray Beach, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Appellee concedes that the trial court committed error by including in its final judgment a provision for costs and for pre and post judgment interest on the claimed due amounts and attorney’s fees. The parties agree that the judgment amount for which the surety is responsible cannot exceed the amount posted by the surety. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Oakhurst Homes, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (trial court can order the party providing the bond to purchase either an additional bond or an increase the existing bond; cannot increase the liability of the security company beyond the amount of the bond).
Accordingly, we affirm the final summary judgment against the surety but remand for the purpose of striking the costs and fees provision to the extent it contravenes the law as set out above.
ANSTEAD and POLEN, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents with opinion.
[*1244] STONE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent and would reverse because in my judgment there remain contested issues of fact to be resolved concerning whether the corporation was an authorized agent to receive notice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pappalardo Constr. Co. & the Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Buck, 568 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…the principals in the contracting corporation. The said notice to owner was not required. See also Symons Corp. v. Tartan-Lavers Delray Beach, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. La Centre [*509] Trucking, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Both parties acknowledge that privity is not defined in the mechanic’s lien law. Tompkins Land Co. v. Edge, 341 So. 2d 206, 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The courts have determined when privity arose on the particular facts of each…
-
Sanchez v. AN Luxury Imports OF Pembroke Pines, Inc., 216 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…y the difference, or to increase the [section 713.24] bond on Bay-view’s later request, Bayview may have no recourse, because a surety is liable only up to the face amount of the transfer bond.”); Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. La Ctr. Trucking, Inc., 559 So. 2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (noting that “the parties agree that the judgment amount for which the surety is responsible cannot exceed the amount posted by the surety,” with regard to a bond posted for a development project); cf. Vital Pharms., Inc. v…
Authorities Cited
- Symons Corp. v. Tartan-Lavers Delray Beach, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- State v. Dene, 512 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Hugger v. State, 512 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)