JAMES STEVENS, ET UX., ET AL., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
SITE DEVELOPERS, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 addresses whether a mechanic's lien is fraudulent when the judicially determined amount is substantially less than claimed. The trial court found no fraud despite the contractor's inclusion of damages items not covered by mechanic's lien law, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the difference between claimed and allowed amounts alone does not establish fraud as a matter of law.
A mechanic's lien is not fraudulent as a matter of law merely because the judicially allowed amount is substantially less than the claimed amount. The trial judge retains discretion to determine the lienor's intent and good faith, and seeking legal counsel prior to filing the lien is relevant evidence of good faith.
[1] A mechanic's lien is not rendered fraudulent as a matter of law solely because the amount judicially determined to be correct is substantially less than the amount origin…
[2] The determination of whether a mechanic's lien is fraudulent involves an inquiry into the lienor's intent and good or bad faith.
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 amounts claimed as a mechanic's lien and the amount finally allowed by the trial judge do not alone determine the lien to be fraudulent as a matter of law”
Establishes the central holding that a mere discrepancy between claimed and allowed lien amounts is insufficient to establish fraud
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA contractor filed a mechanic's lien claim that included labor, materials, and items of damages for breach of contract (loss of profits and constructi…
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 Definition Of 'Willful' cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case involves the issue of whether a claim of a mechanic’s lien is fraudulent merely because the amount judicially determined to be correct is substantially less than the amount of the lien claimed.
In addition to items for labor performed and materials furnished for the improvement of certain real property, the appellee contractor also included in his claim of lien amounts claimed as items of damages for breach of contract in the nature of loss of profits and construction delay. The amounts claimed for these items made the amount of the claimed lien greatly in excess of the amount of the mechanic’s lien finally found by the trial judge, but the trial judge did not find the contractor’s lien to be a fraudulent lien. The owner ap peals, arguing that by including items of construction damages not covered by the mechanic's lien law, the lienor "willfully1 exaggerated the amount for which such lien [was] claimed” and that the trial judge erred in not finding and adjudicating the lien to be fraudulent under section 713.-31(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
We affirm, holding that the amounts claimed as a mechanic’s lien and the amount finally allowed by the trial judge do not alone determine the lien to be fraudulent as a matter of law. The trial judge still has discretion in determining the intent and good or bad faith of the lienor when he stated the amount of the lien claimed. The seeking of advice of counsel, prior to the preparation and filing of the lien, as the appellee did in this case, is evidence relevant to that inquiry. William Dorsky Associates, Inc. v. Highlands County Title, 528 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We cannot hold as a matter of law that the trial judge abused his discretion in making the necessary finding of fact in this case.
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . A "willful” act is one done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, ignorantly or inadvertently. A willfully exaggerated amount is an amount known and intended to be in excess of that allowed by the law under the circumstances and claimed, not in ignorant good faith, but for bad reasons, motives or purposes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DELTA Painting, Inc. v. Baumann, 710 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…more, 511 So. 2d at 644 (reversing finding of valid hen based upon record evidence that contractor’s claim included amounts which were not recoverable and/or authorized under the contract or were arbitrary). But see Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1064, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (stating “[t]he trial judge still had discretion in determining the intent and good or bad faith of the henor when he stated the amount of the lien claimed”). In this case, we find that the lower court’s determination that…
-
Sharrard v. Ligon, 892 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…prior to filing the claim of lien is a factor to be considered along with other pertinent factors. See William Dorsky Assocs., Inc. v. Highlands County Title & Guar. Land Co., 528 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). However, reasoning by analogy to the treatment of the “advice of counsel” defense in malicious prosecution cases, we believe that a lienor can rely on consultation with counsel prior to filing the claim of lien as evidence…
-
SAM Rodgers Props., Inc. v. Chmura, 61 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…g we conclude that, while the amended claim of lien in this case included two items that were not lienable, there is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that it was filed in bad faith. See Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1064, 1064-65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (affirming trial court’s ruling that amounts claimed in lien for lost profits and construction delay were not lienable, but nevertheless concluding that the lien was not fraudulent). Because the trial court’s declaration…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- William Dorsky Assocs., Inc. v. Highlands Cnty. Title & Guar. Land Co., 528 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)