LEONARD S. BARLOW AND ALLISON L. BARLOW, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT MOLLOY, ETC., RESPONDENT
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 Barlows sought to discharge a mechanics lien filed by their general contractor Molloy. The trial court discharged the original lien but refused to discharge an amended lien filed within the statutory 90-day period. The appellate court affirmed, holding that an amended claim of lien filed within the statutory window is valid and does not automatically discharge when the original lien is discharged.
An amended claim of lien filed within the 90-day period provided by section 713.08(4)(b), Florida Statutes, is a valid and separate claim that is not automatically discharged when the original lien is discharged. A contractor may amend a lien within the statutory period provided the amendment does not cause detriment to any person who has acted in good faith reliance on the original claim.
[1] A general contractor may amend a claim of lien at any time within the 90-day statutory period, provided the amendment does not cause detriment to a party who acted in goo…
[2] A party seeking to discharge a mechanics lien must specifically attack the amended claim of lien, rather than relying on the discharge of the original lien.
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“Section 713.08(4)(b) allows a claim of lien to be amended at any time during the 90-day period provided that the amendment does not cause any person to suffer a detriment by having acted in good faith in reliance upon the original claim of lien.”
Establishes the statutory framework permitting lien amendments and the conditions for valid amendments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMolloy, a general contractor, was engaged to construct a residence for the Barlows. A dispute arose during construction, and Molloy ceased work and fi…
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 Action To Enforce Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
Leonard and Allison Barlow petition for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, certiorari. The mandamus petition requests that we require the trial court to discharge an amended claim of a mechanics lien filed by the general contractor, Robert Molloy, who was engaged to construct a residence for them. The certiorari petition asks us to review that order. We deny both requests.
When a dispute arose during construction of the Barlows’ residence, Molloy ceased construction and filed a claim of lien pursuant to section 713.08, Florida Statutes (1999). The Barlows responded by filing a multi-count complaint, the only count of which that is addressed on this appeal is count III, an “Action for Order to Show Cause” pursuant to section 713.21(4), Florida Statutes. By filing count III, the Barlows sought the trial court’s discharge of the lien if Molloy failed to show cause why the lien should not be enforced within 20 days after receipt of a summons.
Molloy filed an amended claim of lien reducing the amount due. The amendment was filed within the required 90 day period for filing a lien. See Fla. Stat. § 713.08(5). He also filed a motion to dismiss the Barlows’ count III alleging that his amended claim of lien rendered their complaint moot, and a separate action to enforce his amended claim of lien.
The Barlows then moved to discharge the claim of lien in the action originally filed by them, arguing that Molloy can have only one hen for each claim, and that by amending the lien after they challenged the original, Molloy had asserted two hens. The trial court discharged the original hen, but refused to discharge the amendment because it was filed within the statutory 90-day period following the last work performed on the Barlows’ residence and because Molloy timely filed an action to foreclose the amended hen. We agree. Section 713.08(4)(b) allows a claim of lien to be amended at any time during the 90-day period provided that the amendment does not cause any person to Suffer a detriment by having acted in good faith in reliance upon the original claim of lien. The Barlows have not alleged any detriment, but only argue that when the trial court discharged the original lien the amendment was also automatically discharged. That was not the trial court’s intent and we find no support for the Barlows’ argument. Additionally, no attack on the amended claim of lien was made by the Barlows in the suit initiated by them.
PETITION DENIED.
W. SHARP, and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D'Anna v. Ackerman, 251 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…ing lien. That amendment rendered moot the wife’s pending motion to strike ---PAGE 2--- 2 the former attorneys’ original charging lien. Thus, the circuit court’s post- amendment order granting the wife’s motion was error. Cf. Barlow v. Molloy, 773 So. 2d 93, 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (where homeowner filed suit seeking discharge of contractor’s original lien, and contractor timely filed an amended lien, trial court properly refused to discharge the amended lien because the homeowners’ suit had yet to atta…