RALPH LEVIN AND ESTELLE LEVIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
PALM COAST BUILDERS AND CONSTRUCTION, 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.
Palm Coast Builders filed a mechanic's lien against the Levins for unpaid construction costs, but the trial court found the lien fraudulent because it included nonlienable items like pool upkeep, lawn maintenance, HOA fees, and utilities. The Fourth District affirmed, rejecting Palm Coast's argument that contract obligations allowed inclusion of these items and the Levins' claim for mandatory punitive damages.
Nonlienable items cannot be included in a mechanic's lien merely because a contract obligates the builder to pay for them. Under Florida law, an 'improvement' must provide permanent benefit to the land; maintenance of landscaping does not qualify as an improvement. Additionally, punitive damages under section 713.31(2)(c) are not automatically awarded; claimants must properly plead punitive damages and comply with section 768.72, which requires a reasonable evidentiary basis before inclusion in a complaint.
[1] A mechanic's lien is fraudulent if it includes nonlienable items such as pool upkeep, lawn maintenance, homeowner's association fees, and utility charges.
[2] Maintenance of landscaping does not constitute an "improvement" for the permanent benefit of land for purposes of qualifying labor for a mechanic's lien.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Our lien law defines 'improvement' as something that is done for the 'permanent benefit' of the land. § 713.01(14), Florida Statutes (2001). Although planting landscaping would constitute an improvement, maintaining it does not, for purposes of qualifying the labor for a lien.”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes a lienable improvement, distinguishing between initial improvements and ongoing maintenance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalm Coast Builders constructed a home for Ralph and Estelle Levin. Palm Coast filed a mechanic's lien claiming it had not been fully paid. The lien i…
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 Fraudulent Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Palm Coast, which built a home for the Levins, filed a mechanic’s lien alleging it had not been fully paid. Palm Coast partially recovered damages, but the court found the lien fraudulent. We affirm.
The trial court found that the lien filed by Palm Coast was fraudulent because it included nonlienable items such as pool upkeep charges, lawn maintenance charges, homeowner’s association fees and utility charges. Palm Coast contends that because its building contract required it to pay for these items it could properly include them in its lien.
Our lien law defines “improvement” as something that is done for the “permanent benefit” of the land. § 713.01(14), Florida Statutes (2001). Although planting landscaping would constitute an improvement, maintaining it does not, for purposes of qualifying the labor for a lien. Legault v. Suncoast Lawn Serv., Inc., 486 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the above items were not lienable, or the finding that the lien was fraudulent. Whether this was willful exaggeration under section 713.31(2)(a) was an issue of fact. As the trial court noted; these items were not lienable “by any stretch of the imagination.” Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
The Levins contend that the trial court was required as a matter of law to award them punitive damages after finding the lien to be fraudulent, relying on section 713.31 (2)(c) which states that a “lienor who files a fraudulent lien shall be liable to the owner or the defrauded party in damages, which shall include ... punitive damages in an amount not exceeding the difference between the amount claimed by the lienor to be due or to become due and the amount actually due or to become due.”
Palm Coast responds that at no time did the Levins claim punitive damages in either the pleadings or the pretrial stipulation, nor did they comply with section 768.72, Florida Statutes, which provide the procedure for asserting punitive damage claims. We agree with Palm Coast that the Levins did have to seek punitive damages in the pleadings and comply with section 768.72 which requires a plaintiff to provide a reasonable evidentiary basis for a punitive damage claim before including it in a complaint. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995).
We have considered the other issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal and find them to be without merit. Affirmed.
STEVENSON, J., and BAILEY, JENNIFER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newman v. Guerra, 208 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…s determination that the contractor’s lien was fraudulent, where the court found that the lien was willfully exaggerated and included items not properly lienable “by any stretch of the imagination.” See Levin v. Palm Coast Builders & [*320] Constr., 840 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (upholding trial court’s finding that lien was fraudulent because it included items that were not lienable “by any stretch of the imagination,” including pool upkeep charges, lawn maintenance charges, homeowner’s association…
-
J.W. Rolle Dev. Corp. v. Neuman, 910 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…amount claimed in the lien and the amount actually due. Section 713.31(2)(c) merely provides that the punitive damages cannot exceed that amount. We do not agree with the contractor that, based on Levin v. Palm Coast Builders & Construction, Inc., 840 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), this homeowner cannot recover punitive damages for a fraudulent lien because it was not raised in the pleadings. This argument was not raised in the trial court and was therefore waived. We accordingly reverse and remand for the…
-
Medellin v. MLA Consulting, Inc., 69 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…her proceedings. ORFINGER, C.J. and LAWSON, J., concur. . The trial court’s order refers to the 2007 statutes, but the contract was not signed until 2008. We will refer to the 2008 statutes. . See also Levin v. Palm Coast Builders & Const., Inc., 840 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the above items were not lien-able, or the finding that the lien was fraudulent. Whether this was willful exaggeration under section 713.3 l(2)(a) was an issue of fact.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Legault v. Suncoast Lawn Serv., Inc., 486 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)