IN RE ADVISORY OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR
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.
In this materialman's lien case, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the validity of a lien notice given by a supplier of building materials for work performed on multiple properties owned by the same person, holding that a general notice satisfies statutory requirements and that proof of material furnished to each building is not required in the complaint itself.
The court held that the written notice of lien is sufficient in form and substance, and that it is not essential for the complaint to allege the specific amount of material used in each building; rather, proof that material was furnished and used for each building at trial establishes the lien and the amount due becomes a matter of proof.
“An allegation that the materialman gave the owner of the land written notice, is a sufficient allegation of the delivery of the notice to the owner and where a written notice is given to the owner, it is a sufficient service for the purpose of the lien created by the statute.”
Establishes that proof of delivery through allegation and provision of written notice satisfies statutory requirements for materialman'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 intelligenceG. S. Thomas supplied materials for the construction of houses on two properties owned by E. E. Skipper. Skipper had contracted with M. Boot to constr…
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 Sufficiency Of Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
In a bill brought by the appellee to enforce a materialman’s lien, it is alleged that E. E.
Skipper, the owner of Lot 4, Block “K.” and Lot 7, Block ‘“J.”
Wades addition &c., contracted with M.
Boot for the erection of two houses ;on the first mentioned lot and one house on the second mentioned lot; that complainant “furnished material, lumber and other building material for the use of the said M.
Boot in constructing the said houses upon the above described property; that complainant “gave M.
Boot and E. E.
Skipper written notice” which was duly filed and recorded in the following words: “To M.
Root and E. E.
Shipper, Owners and All Whom It Moa/ Concern: “Yon will take notice that there is due G. S.
Thomas, the sum as below, for work and labor and material furnished, done upon certain buildings and structures situate upon the following described lands, situate and lying and being in the County of Polk, State of Florida, and particularly described as follows, to-wit: “2 houses in rear of Bank Building on Lot 4, in Block “K.” and one house in rear of hotel in Lot 7, in Block “J.” all in United States Lot One (1), section 33, township 31 S., range 28 East Wade’s Addition and re-subdivision of Frostproof; which said work was completed on the 20th day of January A. D. 1915, and the sum of Three Hundred Thirteen and 60/100 Dollars is due for material furnished and used in the construction of said buildings and structures on said lands, and that said claim is a lien upon same for said amount. “You will also take notice that said G. S.
Thomas, intends to hold a lien for said above amount on all and singular the said above described buildings, structures and the land on which same are situated. “G. S.
THOMAS. “State of Florida, “Polk County. ss “Personally appeared before me, G. S.
Thomas, who being duly sworn, says that the facts set forth in the above notice are true in all particulars; that the total amount of Three Hundred Thirteen and 60/100 Dollars, is justly due and unpaid; that said G. S.
Thomas hereby acknowledges that the above notice has been given for the purposes therein expressed, and prays that the same may be duly recorded. “G. S.
THOMAS. “Sworn to and subscribed before me this 22nd day of March, A. D. 1915. “JOHN C.
BUBLEIGH, “Notary Public. “My commission expires July 13th, 1915. “Endorsed on Back as Follows: “Filed for record 24th day of March, 1915, and recorded in Lien Book D on page 205. “J. A. JOHNSON.”
It is further alleged “that at the time of the service of said notice of lien there was due and owing to the contractor M.
Boot by said E. E.
Skipper an amount in excess of the amount due by the said M.
Root to complainant for materials furnished;” that neither of the said defendants has paid complainant the balance of $285.34 due for such materials.
The prayer is in effect that a lien be decreed and enforced. E. E.
Skipper demurred separately on grounds that the bill of complaint does not show the amount of material used in the several buildings on different lots and that the written notice is not sufficient.
This demurrer was overruled and Skipper appealed.
The statute provides for a lien upon the owner’s real estate “by the delivery to him, or his agent, of a written notice that the contractor * * * for whom the materials have been furnished, is indebted to the person * * * furnishing the materials in the sum stated in the notice.” “A lien shall exist from the time of the service of the notice for the amount unpaid on the contract.”
An allegation that the materialman gave the owner of the land written notice, is a sufficient allegation of the delivery of the notice to the owner and where a written notice is given to the owner, it is a sufficient service for the purpose of the lien created by the statute.
The notice as found is sufficient in view of the relation of the parties as shown.
See Reed v. Southern Lumber & Supply Co., 73 Fla. 886, 75 South.
Rep. 29.
It is not essential to show a lien in a case of this character that the bill of complaint alleges the amount of material used in the construction of each of the several buildings.
If the proofs show any material furnished and used for each building the lien exists and the amount due is a matter of proof.
Decree affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2000)…02 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The term “payable” has been defined in this Court’s case law as “meaning ‘capable of being paid; suitable to be paid; admitting or demanding payment; justly due; legally enforceable.’ ” In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 74 Fla. 250, 254, 77 So. 102, 103 (1917). Black’s Law Dictionary provides this same definition, but with an important amplification that “when used without qualification, [the] term normally means that the debt is payable at once, as opposed to ‘owing.’ ” Black…
-
Webster v. 759 Riverside Ave., Inc., 113 Fla. 8 (Fla. 1933)…ry. The word has been defined by this Court as used in the Constitution as “ ‘capable of being paid; suitable to be paid; admitting or demanding payment; justly due; legally enforceable.’ ” In re: Advisory Opinion to Governor, 74 Fla. 250, text 254, 77 South. Rep. 102; 6 Words and Phrases 5245. A note and a mortgage referred to in the note which are executed at the same time and in the same transaction should be construed together as to provisions' in one of the instruments explaining or affecting the provisions…
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 74 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1954)…ary fixed by law irrespective of the amount specified therefor in the General Appropriation Act of the Legislature. In re Advisory Opinion to Governor Sholtz, 114 Fla. 520, 154 So. 154; see, also, In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 74 Fla. 250, 77 So. 102.” After having re-affirmed the law, the opinion then gave as a reason for upholding the salary of Williams, an employee, appropriated in the General Appropriation Act, the provision that where the salary had not been changed by any act of the Legis…
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
- Reed v. S. Lumber & Supply Co., 73 Fla. 886 (Fla. 1917)