DANIEL E. YOUNG, APPELLANT,
v.
G & S BUILDING SUPPLY, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no waiver of the mechanic's lien rights and no detrimental reliance for estoppel.
[1] An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's findings of fact following a non-jury trial absent an abuse of discretion.
[2] A question of fact exists regarding whether a party has waived their right to relief under mechanic's lien law.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant contracted for roof tiles, but the delivered tiles were rejected. After the supplier issued worthless checks, appellant entered into an agre…
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 Enforcement Of Mechanic'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
DIMITROULEAS, WILLIAM P., Associate Judge.
Appellant, Daniel E. Young, appeals a final judgment enforcing a mechanic’s lien against his residence. The final judgment is based upon specific findings of fact and conclusions of law following a non-jury trial. While we may not agree with the trial judge’s findings of fact, he is the one who observed the testimony, and absent an abuse of discretion, those findings should not be disturbed on appeal. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Young decided to build a home on property he owned in Manalapan. After having problems with a contractor, he decided to take over the responsibility of building the home. Young entered into an oral contract with Rudy Zamora to supply roof tiles, and he paid for the tiles. Zamora delivered tiles that were rejected by the building inspector. As a result, Zamora agreed to buy back the tiles from Young. After issuing three different worthless checks to Young, Zamora contacted appellee G & S, about supplying the tiles. G & S delivered the tiles and an invoice. Young called G & S about the bill, and Young testified that he was told that the invoice represented the difference between the total amount due and what Zamora owed him. G & S denied ever saying that they were willing to look solely to Zamora for payment of the difference, and they filed a mechanic’s lien upon Young’s failure to pay the difference. Young argues that G & S waived their right to relief under the mechanic’s lien law because they agreed to look to Zamora for payment. A question of fact existed as to whether there was a waiver. Brown v. Powell, 531 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by factually finding no waiver.
Additionally, we find no error in the trial court’s failure to find that Young had relied to his detriment so that an estoppel would apply. See Mid-Florida Pools & Repairs, Inc. v. Coe, 530 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
AFFIRMED.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Hiott, 129 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ide Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Edwards, 573 So. 2d 142, 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[I]t was within the trial court’s discretion to conclude that Seaside waived its right to require the additional escrow account deposit.”); Young v. G & S Bldg. Supply, Inc., 603 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“A question of fact existed as to whether there was a waiver. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by factually finding no waiver.”) (internal citation omitted). Here, however, the facts are not in dispu…
Authorities Cited
- Westphal v. Morrow, 531 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Brown v. Powell, 531 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Mid-Florida Pools & Repairs, Inc. v. Royce H. COE, 530 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)