ALBERT BJORAAS, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA CO., A CORPORATION; DOROTHY A. GREENE AND HUSBAND, O. C. GREENE, E. J. THOMPSON AND ADA THOMPSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
Bjoraas filed a bill to foreclose a statutory lien for work and materials furnished. The trial court sustained demurrers challenging the bill's vagueness and lack of specificity regarding the labor and materials claimed. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a complaint need not itemize every detail of labor and materials to survive a demurrer in a lien foreclosure action.
The Court reversed, holding that the bill need not contain such detailed specifications to withstand a demurrer. The bill sufficiently alleges a statutory lien claim if it adequately apprises defendants of the nature of the charge upon which the lien is based.
“The Bill of Complaint is vague, uncertain and indefinite, in that same does not appraise these defendants of the nature of the charge upon which the lien sought to be foreclosed thereunder is based.”
The grounds asserted by defendants in their demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the bill's allegations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBjoraas filed a bill to foreclose a statutory lien based on work done and material furnished. Defendants filed demurrers arguing the bill was vague, u…
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.
Per Curiam.
In this ease bill was filed to foreclose a statutory lien for work done and material furnished.
A demurrer was filed, by certain defendants, to the bill upon the grounds that, “The Bill of Complaint is vague, uncertain and indefinite, in that same does not appraise these defendants of the nature of the charge upon which the lien sought to be foreclosed thereunder is based.”
A demurrer was filed by another defendant upon the ground, 1st, “Because of lack of definiteness and certainty in the allegations thereof respecting the kind, delivery and reasonableness of the value of the labor and materials averred to have been furnished at the request of the defendant;” 2nd, “and for lack of sufficiency in the allegation of the bill in this: there is no specification of the items of labor and material so furnished and no allegation respecting the amount of material and kind of materials furnished and no enumeration of the days of labor or class of labor performed, nor time of performance thereof, nor averment that the amounts sought to be recovered were reasonable and that the balance is justly owing.”
The demurrers to the Bill of Complaint were sustained and appeal was taken from such order..
The order of the Chancellor should be reversed upon authority of the opinion in the eases of Mills v. Britt, 56 Fla. 839, 47 Sou. 799; Downing v. Carlton, 76 Fla. 490, 80 Sou. 57; Key West Wharf & Coal Company et al. v. Porter, 63 Fla. 448, 58 Sou. 599, and cases there cited; also Wells et al. v. Williams et al., 80 Fla. 498, 86 Sou. 339; Mitchell v. Mason, 65 Fla. 208, 61 Sou. 579, and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis C. J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. Mason, 65 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1913)
- Key W. Wharf & Coal Co. & Jeanette L. Murphy v. Louisa Porter, 63 Fla. 448 (Fla. 1912)
- Jewell P. Wells v. Williams, 80 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1920)
- Mills v. Britt, 56 Fla. 839 (Fla. 1908)
- Downing v. Carlton, 76 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1918)