CARTIER-MCDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND PETE CARTIER, APPELLANTS,
v.
WATERVIEW DEVELOPMENT, INC., 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.
In a mechanic's lien foreclosure dispute, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment awarding the lien to Waterview with a set-off for Cartier's defective work, but reversed and remanded the denial of pre-judgment interest for reconsideration on the merits.
A trial court's denial of pre-judgment interest on a mechanic's lien foreclosure must be reversed and remanded when the denial was based on timeliness grounds rather than the merits, allowing the trial court to address the substantive pre-judgment interest claim.
[1] When a trial court denies a pre-judgment interest motion on timeliness grounds without addressing the merits, the appellate court must reverse and remand for the trial co…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWaterview Development initiated a mechanic's lien foreclosure action against Cartier-McDonald Construction and its officer Pete Cartier for work perfo…
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 Bench Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. Water-view Development, Inc. initiated the litigation to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against Cartier-McDonald Construction, Inc., and its officer, Pete Cartier, (Cartier collectively) for work done on a sub-contract agreement that Cartier-McDonald made with Waterview to build the shell of a warehouse building. Cartier denied foreclosure and counterclaimed that Waterfront did not complete the work in a timely manner and the construction was poor. After a bench trial, the trial court gave Waterview the mechanic’s lien and gave Cartier a set-off for defective work proven at trial. Cartier appeals this final judgment as well as an attorney’s fees order. Waterview appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for pre-judgment interest as untimely.
We affirm the final order and attorney’s fees order in all aspects without further explanation. However, we reverse the order denying pre-judgment interest. Cartier admitted in the briefs that the motion was not untimely but argued that prejudgment interest should be denied on the merits. Because the trial court denied the motion as untimely and did not rule on the merits of the motion, we are unable to entertain arguments on the merits. Therefore, we reverse only the order on pre-judgment interest and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of the pre-judgment interest motion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harder v. Edwards, 174 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ey request law enforcement to make an arrest. Id. “As long as the employees acted reasonably,” the Court held, “their action did not constitute ‘direct procurement of an arrest.’” Id.; see also Harris, 786 So. 2d at 1225-26; Moore v. Dep’t of Corr., 833 So. 2d 822, 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In this case, Carlson acted reasonably in performing his investigation and merely provided Detective Harder with the binder of fraudulent checks. The inescapable truth — which no one disputes — is that a crime did occur in…
-
Lovett v. Forman, 883 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…pecial duty. Plaintiff also disagrees with Harris v. Kearney, 786 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), in which a person was wrongfully arrested for food stamp fraud because of a mistake made by the state, and Moore v. [*321] Department of Corrections, 833 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), in which a person was wrongfully arrested because a Department of Corrections officer negligently failed to revoke an outstanding warrant for her arrest after her probation was terminated. We concluded in both cases that there w…
-
German Florez v. Broward Sheriff's Off. & Howard Forman, 270 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…against the clerk or sheriff based on the clerk’s error because the maintenance of records is a function undertaken by the government for the public generally and does not create a special duty. Id. at 320–21; see also Moore v. Dep’t of Corr., 833 So. 2d 822, 823–24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding no special duty owed which would permit recovery against government where individual was wrongfully arrested by another agency because corrections officer negligently failed to revoke outstanding warrant for…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence