NACHON ENTERPRISES INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALEXDEX CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Nachon Enterprises properly filed a construction lien foreclosure action in County Court, and the Circuit Court erred in discharging the lien based on Nachon's failure to respond to a show cause action filed in the wrong court. The court held that construction lien foreclosure actions fall within County Court jurisdiction and are not exclusive to Circuit Court.
County Court has jurisdiction to hear construction lien foreclosure actions, which are equitable in nature and do not involve questions of title to real property exclusively reserved for Circuit Court. Nachon properly filed the foreclosure action in County Court, and the Circuit Court erred in discharging the lien without considering the pendency of the properly filed County Court action.
[1] County Courts have jurisdiction to hear construction lien foreclosure actions when the amount in controversy is within the county court's jurisdictional limit.
[2] A construction lien foreclosure action is not an action involving the title and boundaries of real property for the purposes of exclusive circuit court jurisdiction.
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“Florida's lien laws, Chapter 713, are an abrogation of the common law, and are to be strictly construed, as well as strictly applied.”
Establishes the strict standard of construction for lien statutes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1991, Nachon Enterprises filed a notice of lis pendens and foreclosure action for a construction lien of $4,140.44 in County Court against Alexdex …
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 Local Action Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
In this action to foreclose a construction lien in the amount of $4,140.44, we find that the lienor properly filed the foreclosure action in County Court, and thus it was error for the Circuit Court to discharge the lien.
In 1991, appellant Nachon Enterprises filed a notice of lis pendens to establish and foreclose a construction lien, against appel-lee Alexdex Corporation’s property, in the civil division of the County Court. Alexdex responded with a complaint to show cause and to discharge the lien, which was filed in the Circuit Court. Nachon then filed a Motion to Dismiss Alexdex’s complaint in the Circuit Court setting forth the fact that Nachon had already timely instituted a foreclosure action in the County Court. Despite the foregoing, in June of 1992, the Circuit Court granted Alexdex’s Motion to Discharge the lien based upon the ground that Nachon had not properly responded to the Show Cause Action.
Florida’s lien laws, Chapter 713, are an abrogation of the common law, and are to be strictly construed, as well as strictly applied. See Krasne-Gold Coast Joint Venture v. Allied Drywall, Inc., 573 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Goldberger v. United Plumbing and Heating, Inc., 358 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Wesley Constr. Co. v. Yarnell, 268 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Section 713.22(1) provides that a lien is not enforceable after one year from the recording of the claim of lien “unless within that time an action to enforce the lien is commenced in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Effective October 1, 1990, the legislature promulgated Section 34.01(4) which specifically states that:
Judges of county courts may hear all matters in equity involved in any case within the jurisdictional amount of the county court, except as otherwise restricted by the State Constitution or the laws of Florida.
Pursuant to this Section, a “court of competent jurisdiction” to hear foreclosure actions, which are equitable in nature, now includes the County Court. Unlike an action to quiet title, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, see § 26.012(2)(g), Fla.Stat. (1991), the foreclosure action at issue here is not an action “involving the title and boundaries of real property.” See also Spector v. Old Town Key West Development, Ltd., 567 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citing cases dealing with real property but not governed by “local action” rule), review denied, 577 So. 2d 1327 (Fla.1991); Kugeares v. Casino, Inc., 372 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (landlord’s action to regain possession of real property not within Circuit Court jurisdiction under § 26.012); Williams v. Gund, 334 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (action for damages for unlawful detainer of real property not within § 26.012). Thus, construction lien foreclosure actions are to be filed in the County Court if the amount involved does not exceed the jurisdictional limit of that court. Accordingly, Nachon had properly taken steps to avoid cancellation of the lien. See Mainlands Constr. Co., Inc. v. Wen-Dic Constr. Co., Inc., 482 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1986).
When Alexdex subsequently filed its Motion to Discharge the lien in Circuit Court, pursuant to the provisions of Section 713.21(4), Nachon properly responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss in the Circuit Court action, which advised the Circuit Court judge as to the pendency of the County Court foreclosure action. The Circuit Court judge erred in denying Nachon’s Motion to Dismiss which demonstrated proper cause not to discharge, based upon the prior timely and proper filing of the foreclosure action in the County Court.
Accordingly, we reverse the discharge of the construction lien with instructions that the Circuit Court reinstate the lien and grant Nachon’s Motion to Dismiss the Circuit Court case, thus allowing Nachon to pursue foreclosure of the lien in the properly filed County Court case.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enters., Inc., 641 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1994)…PER CURIAM. Under jurisdiction granted to us by article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, we review Nachon Enterprises, Inc. v. Alexdex Corp., 615 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), because of its conflict with Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc., 502 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We approve the opinion below and hold that circuit courts, and county courts within their statutorily set mone…1 / 2
-
Blackton, Inc. v. Young, 629 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…a cause of action for quantum meruit, appellant voluntarily dismissed this cause of action. The circuit court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction citing Nachon Enterprises Inc. v. Alexdex Corp., 615 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. granted 626 So. 2d 203 (Fla. Sept. 15, 1993). The court found that appellant was not barred from refiling its action in county court. Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred by dismissing its complaint for lack o…
-
Brooks v. Ocean Vill. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 625 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…§ 1, Laws of Fla. This court has recently construed the statute to mean that “a ‘court of competent jurisdiction’ to hear foreclosure actions, which are equitable in nature, now includes the County Court.” Nachon Enterprises, Inc. v. Alexdex Corp., 615 So. 2d 245, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, 626 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1993). In so holding this court impliedly agreed with the rationale of Spradley v. Doe, 612 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We see no way to distinguish the condominium lien foreclosure proceed…
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
- Mainlands Constr. Co., Inc. v. Wen-Dic Constr. Co., Inc., 482 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1986)
- Dansig v. Roman, 358 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Smith v. State, 573 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Wesley Constr. Co. v. Yarnell, 268 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Spector v. OLD Town KEY W. Dev., Ltd., 567 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Williams v. Gund, 334 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Kugeares v. Casino, Inc., 372 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)