W.W. PLASTERING, INCORPORATED, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CHISM CONSTRUCTION INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; WAYNE R. CHISM, INDIVIDUALLY; LORIE L. MCCARROLL, INDIVIDUALLY; DANIEL J. GALLAGHER, INDIVIDUALLY; AND MARION D. GALLAGHER, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
W.W. Plastering filed a construction lien foreclosure action in county court, but after the lien was transferred to a security bond, the appellant failed to timely transfer its action to circuit court within one year as required by Florida statute. The court affirmed dismissal of the action, holding that circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions against transferred liens and that Florida construction lien laws must be strictly construed.
The court held that circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions against transferred construction liens, and that absent timely transfer to circuit court within one year of the lien transfer, an action against the bond must be dismissed. The appellant's failure to timely move its action to circuit court resulted in loss of all jurisdiction.
[1] Circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions against construction liens transferred to security bonds.
[2] An action against a construction lien transferred to a security bond must be filed in circuit court within one year of the date the transferred lien is recorded, unless t…
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“Circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions against liens transferred to security bonds.”
Establishes that county courts lack jurisdiction once a lien is transferred to a security bond
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW.W. Plastering initiated a construction lien foreclosure action in county court. The defendants (appellees) transferred the construction lien to a se…
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 Foreclosure Of Construction Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant attempted to foreclose a construction lien by suit filed in county court, after which the appellees transferred the construction lien to a security bond pursuant to section 713.24, Florida Statutes (2000).
The appellant dismissed its action against the construction lien and then filed, again in the county court, an amended complaint against the security bond. After more than one year had passed from the date that the lien was transferred to security, the appellees were granted a request to move their counterclaim to circuit court in order to seek damages beyond the county court’s jurisdiction. After the matter was transferred to circuit court, the appellees moved to dismiss the appellant’s action against the security bond on the basis that the appellant had not timely initiated an action against the security bond in a court of competent jurisdiction as required by sections 713.22 and 713.24(4), Florida Statutes (2000).
We affirm the circuit court’s order granting the appellees’ motion to dismiss with prejudice the appellant’s action against the security bond.
Circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions against liens transferred to security bonds. See § 713.24(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); see also Current Control, Inc. v. Bankers Ins. Co., 679 So. 2d 78, 78-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Stel-Den of America, Inc. v. Roof Structures, Inc., 438 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Moreover, unless an owner elects to shorten the time for filing an action against a bond by following the procedures set forth in section 713.22(2), Florida Statutes, an action against a transferred lien must be filed — in the circuit court — within one year of the date that the transferred lien is recorded or the security must be returned. See §§ 713.22(1) & (2); 713.24(4), Fla. Stat. (2000). Florida construction lien laws must be strictly construed. See, e.g., Stunkel v. Gazebo Landscaping Design, Inc., 660 So. 2d 623, 625 (Fla.1995).
Thus, even though the appellant’s original action against the construction lien was properly within the county court’s jurisdiction, the county court lost jurisdiction over the matter as soon as the construction lien was transferred to a security bond.
Because the county court did not have jurisdiction over the action against a security bond and because the appellant did not timely move the action to circuit court, the circuit court’s order dismissing the action with prejudice is AFFIRMED.
DAVIS, BENTON and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hiller v. Phoenix Assocs. OF S. Fla., Inc., 189 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…on of law” language in section 713.24(4), section 713.22(2) allows the owner to shorten the time period to commence an action on the security by filing a notice of contest, as Hiller did here. See, e.g., W.W. Plastering, Inc. v. Chism Constr., Inc., 867 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“[U]nless an owner elects to shorten the time for filing an action against a bond by following the procedures set forth in section 713.22(2), Florida Statutes, an action against a transferred lien must be filed — in the cir…
-
Prof'l Plastering & Stucco, Inc. v. Bridgeport-Strasberg Joint Venture, 940 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ay to form here, the courts have uniformly enforced the technical niceties of the [*453] Construction Lien Law in a strict fashion without regard to considerations of equity or actual prejudice. See, e.g., W.W. Plastering, Inc. v. Chism Const. Inc., 867 So. 2d 600, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (lien law is a creature of statute and must be strictly construed); Zalay v. Ace Cabinets of Cleanvater, Inc., 700 So. 2d 15, 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (Florida construction lien laws must be strictly construed). Under the hold…
Authorities Cited
- Stel-Den OF Am., Inc. v. Roof Structures, Inc., 438 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Stunkel v. Gazebo Landscaping Design, Inc., 660 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1995)
- Current Control, Inc. v. Bankers Ins. Co., 679 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)