J.W. ROLLE DEVELOPMENT CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
MARVIN NEUMAN, 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.
A general contractor appeals a summary judgment finding that it filed a fraudulent mechanics' lien and awarding damages to the homeowner. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the fraudulent lien issue presents a fact question unsuitable for summary judgment and that the trial court misinterpreted the punitive damages statute.
The determination of whether the contractor willfully exaggerated the lien amount presents a factual issue unsuitable for summary judgment. The trial court misinterpreted section 713.31 by awarding punitive damages equal to the difference between claimed and actual lien amounts, when the statute merely caps punitive damages at that amount.
[1] Whether a contractor willfully exaggerated the amount of a mechanics' lien, thereby filing a fraudulent lien, is an issue of fact that generally cannot be determined on s…
[2] A trial court may err by directing a verdict on a breach of contract claim if there is evidence from which a jury could properly determine damages.
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“whether the contractor had filed a fraudulent lien (willfully exaggerated the amount), was an issue of fact which should not have been determined on summary judgment”
Establishes the central holding that fraudulent lien determination is a factual question unsuitable for summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe contractor and homeowner entered into an oral agreement for home renovation whereby the contractor would receive 25% of the profit from the home's…
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 Willful Exaggeration Of Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant, a general contractor, appeals a judgment awarding damages to a homeowner based on a summary judgment determining that the contractor filed a fraudulent mechanics’ lien. See § 713.31(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001).
We reverse. The contractor and the homeowner entered into an oral agreement to renovate a home. The agreement provided that the contractor would receive twenty-five percent of the profit from the sale of the home and other compensation. Before the house was sold, the contractor and homeowner had a falling out, and the contractor filed a lien. In order to establish an amount in the lien, the contractor used methods for valuing the labor and materials which were different from the oral agreement which provided that he would receive a percentage of the profit from the sale. His explanation for doing it in this manner was that he was under a statutory deadline to file the lien, but it was premature to determine profits because the home had not yet been sold. He did obtain the advice of counsel regarding the lien.
We conclude that under the circumstances, whether the contractor had filed a fraudulent lien (willfully exaggerated the amount), was an issue of fact which should not have been determined on summary judgment. Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); S. Motor Co. of Dade County v. Accountable Constr. Co., 707 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
The trial court also directed a verdict on the contractor’s claim for breach of contract because of inadequate proof of damages; however, we find evidence from which a jury could have properly determined damages. In addition, the trial court misinterpreted section 713.31, Florida Statutes (2001), when it awarded punitive damages. The court concluded that it was required to award the difference between the 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 court to determine if the lien was fraudulent and for a new jury trial on the contractor’s claim for breach of contract.
FARMER, KLEIN, JJ., and MILLER, KAREN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gator Boring & Trenching, Inc. v. Westra Constr. Corp., 210 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ien transfer bond and in dismissing count II in favor of Travelers. The question of whether Gator’s lien is fraudulent within the meaning of section 713.31 is an issue of fact that remains to be decided at trial. See J.W. Rolle Dev. Corp. v. Neuman, 910 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that the question of whether a contractor had filed a fraudulent lien by willfully exaggerating the amount was an issue of fact that should not have been determined on summary judgment). B. Consideration of the Par…
Authorities Cited
- Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- S. Motor Co. OF Dade Cnty. v. Accountable Constr. Co., 707 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Levin v. Palm Coast Builders & Constr., Inc., 840 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)