WAL-MART STORES, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
AAA ASPHALT, INC., COASTAL MATERIALS OF ALABAMA, INC., AND BUSBY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., 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.
Wal-Mart appealed a summary judgment granting equitable relief to subcontractors under Florida Statute § 713.31 based on constructive fraud. The court reversed, holding that equitable relief under § 713.31 requires proof of intentional fraud, not merely negligent conduct or constructive fraud.
Equitable relief under § 713.31(1) requires proof of intent to defraud. The statute's reference to 'fraud' requires intentional conduct—specifically, a deliberate and knowing misrepresentation designed to cause detrimental reliance—not merely negligent or constructive fraud.
[1] Equitable relief under Florida Statute section 713.31 requires proof of actual fraud, intentional misrepresentation, or affirmative deception.
[2] Constructive fraud, based on negligent failure to determine the invalidity of a payment bond, is insufficient to support equitable relief under Florida Statute section 71…
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“to prove fraud, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant made a deliberate and knowing misrepresentation designed to cause, and actually causing detrimental reliance by the plaintiff.”
Establishes the required elements of fraud under Florida law; intentional conduct is essential.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWal-Mart, a property owner, was involved in a construction project. Subcontractors filed liens claiming they were deprived of benefits and rights due …
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 Affirmative Deception cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on Wal-Mart’s appeal from an order granting summary final judgment to Appellees (hereinafter “the subcontractors”). We reverse.1
At the summary final judgment hearing, the subcontractors’ counsel acknowledged that the record did not prove “aggressive positive fraud” by Wal-Mart. However, the trial court found that Wal-mart had perpetrated a constructive fraud on the subcontractors by negligently failing to determine the invalidity of the payment bond, and held that the subcontractors were entitled to equitable relief under section 713.31, Florida Statutes.
Wal-Mart argues on appeal that such equitable relief under section 713.31 requires evidence of actual fraud, intentional misrepresentation, or affirmative deception; the subcontractors argue to the contrary that equitable relief under section 713.31 is appropriate absent any such proof.
Section 713.31(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in pertinent part that a trial court may provide equitable remedies “[w]hen the owner or any lienor shall, by fraud, or collusion, deprive or attempt to deprive any lienor of benefits or rights to which such lienor is entitled_” (Emphasis added.) We find no cases defining “fraud,” as used in the foregoing statute, in the context of this case. However, in other construction cases, intentional conduct is required. As the Florida Supreme Court held in First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536, 539 (Fla.1987), “to prove fraud, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant made a deliberate and knowing misrepresentation designed to cause, and actually causing detrimental reliance by the plaintiff.” (Emphasis added.) See also Taylor v. Kenco Chemical & Mfg. Corp., 465 So. 2d 581, 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (listing elements of fraud). In Vinci Dev. Co. v. Connell, 509 So. 2d 1128, 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA),2 the court held that Florida Statute section 713.31, providing remedies for fraudulent liens, was intended to apply where a lienor willfully exaggerates the claim of lien, not where the filing, though incorrect, is made in “good faith.”
We hold that the trial court erred in entering summary final judgment for the subcontractors under section 713.31(1) in the absence of a finding of intent to defraud. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.
BOOTH, MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur. . We affirm without comment the subcontractors' cross-appeal.
. Rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ewell Indus., Inc., 694 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…imposing an equitable hen for the benefit of Ewell Industries, which supphed materials used in the completion of a new Sam’s Club facility in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida.1 In hght of this court’s opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. AAA Asphalt, Inc., 677 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), which had not been rendered when the trial court decided this case, we reverse. The general contractor for the project, Wyatt Bros., purchased ready-mix concrete from Ewell and incorporated the material into the project. The te…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1987)
- Taylor v. Kenco Chem. & MFG. Corp. & Emerald Mfg. Co., Inc., 465 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Vinci Dev. Co. v. Connell, 509 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)