MILTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JMS DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION, INC., 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.
Milton Construction Company appealed orders vacating and dismissing its action to discharge a construction lien recorded by JMS Development Construction against Milton's payment bond. The court dismissed the appeal as moot, holding that once a payment bond was in place, the construction lien was secured under that bond and had no independent legal effect.
The court dismissed the appeal as moot because once the payment bond was executed and delivered, the construction lien was automatically secured under that bond and had no independent legal effect, making Milton's action to discharge the lien unnecessary and the lien no longer a cloud on title.
[1] A construction lien has no legal effect once a payment bond is in place to secure the claim of lien.
[2] A trial court may dismiss an action seeking to discharge a construction lien as moot when a payment bond has been established to secure the 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“once the payment bond was in place, the construction lien had no legal effect”
Establishes the core holding that payment bonds supersede construction liens, making discharge actions moot
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJMS recorded a claim of lien against Milton's payment bond. Milton filed a complaint seeking to discharge the lien and obtained a show cause order. Wh…
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 Payment Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal, Milton Construction Company appeals an order that vacated a previous order discharging a construction lien recorded by appellee JMS Development Construction, Inc. Milton also appeals an order dismissing the underlying action altogether. We dismiss both cases as moot, because while Milton is entitled to have the construction lien discharged, JMS’s action was against a payment bond, and once the payment bond was in place, the construction lien had no legal effect.
JMS recorded a claim of lien against Milton’s payment bond. Upon learning of the claim of lien, Milton filed a complaint seeking to discharge the lien. Thereafter, a summons was issued and served upon JMS ordering it to show cause, within twenty days, why the claim of lien should not be enforced by action or vacated and canceled of record, pursuant to section 713.21(4), Florida Statutes (2006). When JMS did not respond within twenty days, the trial court vacated and canceled the construction lien. Upon receiving the discharge order, JMS moved to vacate it. JMS claimed that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter it because JMS had previously filed and served a separate action to enforce its claim of lien against Milton’s payment bond in another division of the circuit court.
The trial court ultimately granted JMS’s motion to vacate and then dismissed the matter entirely on rehearing, based upon findings that JMS had commenced a lawsuit in this matter in front of another division, and that there was already a payment bond in place pursuant to that lawsuit. Indeed, according to section 713.23(f)(2), Florida Statutes (2006):
The bond shall secure every lien under the direct contract accruing subsequent to its execution and delivery, except that of the contractor. Every claim of lien, except that of the contractor, filed subsequent to execution and delivery of the bond shall be transferred to it with the same effect as liens transferred under s. 713.24.
(emphasis added). That is, once the payment bond was in place, the claim of lien was secured under that bonded contract, and Milton’s complaint seeking to discharge the lien was unnecessary.
Therefore, the trial court correctly dismissed the case because the claim of lien was no longer “a cloud on the title.” Furthermore, as a matter of law, the construction lien had no legal effect.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Velazquez v. Rosen, 107 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ht to appeal); Pelle v. Glantz, 349 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (dismissing an appeal from an interlocutory order when the entry of final judgment rendered the interlocutory appeal moot); see also Milton Constr. Co. v. JMS Dev. Constr., Inc., 967 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (dismissing an appeal where once the claim of lien had been transferred to a bond there was no further construction lien or cloud on title, making the plaintiffs complaint seeking to discharge the lien unnecessary). We thus dismi…