GEORGE HARDEN & SON, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES F. HARVEY AND HELEN A. ARNOLD, APPELLEES; AUSTIN POWDER COMPANY, AN OHIO CORPORATION, APPELLANT, V. CHARLES F. HARVEY AND HELEN A. ARNOLD, APPELLEES; CAVES & MARSH, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT, V. CHARLES F. HARVEY AND HELEN A. ARNOLD, 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.
This case involves three appellants who claimed liens against property under Florida's Mechanics' Lien Law. The property owners sought to have these liens cancelled unless foreclosed within 30 days. The trial court dismissed the foreclosure complaints and cancelled the liens, a decision affirmed on appeal.
No, subcontractors are not entitled to enforce mechanics' liens against property owners under these circumstances. The Florida Mechanics' Lien Law requires that some amount be payable by the owner to the contractor for a lien to be enforceable.
“No payment was provided to be made by the owners to the contractor, but the latter agreed to pay the owners for the material removed at the rate of 5¢ for each cubic yard, and to pay the owner $500 a month as a minimum, whether or not any material was removed.”
This quote describes the financial arrangement between the owners and the contractor, highlighting the lack of a direct payment obligation from the owners to the contractor for the work performed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were subcontractors who performed excavation work and supplied materials to a contractor, Jubili, Inc., which had a contract with the prope…
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 Florida Mechanics' Lien Law cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants in the three above styled appeals claimed liens against property of the appellees, under the Florida Mechanics’ Lien Law, Ch. 84, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The appellees, who will be referred to herein as the owners, obtained a rule, under § 84.23(4), requiring the respondent lien claimants to foreclose within 30 days or have their liens cancelled. They responded with separate complaints for foreclosure, the issues on which were tried together before the chancellor. A single decree was entered, dismissing the three lien foreclosure complaints with prejudice and can-celling the lien notices. The owners contracted with Jubili, Inc. to do certain excavation and for sale to the contractor of the material received. Jubili, Inc. used P. M. Walker Company, Inc. to perform the work. Appellants were sub-contractors of the Walker corporation. Their contention on these appeals is that they are entitled to liens because the transaction benefited the owners’ property and enhanced its value. No payment was provided to be made by the owners to the contractor, but the latter agreed to pay the owners for the material removed at the rate of 5‡ for each cubic yard, and to pay the owner $500 a month as a minimum, whether or not any material was removed. On the record, no amount was shown to be or remain payable by the owners to the contractor Jubili, Inc., as requisite under § 84.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The chancellor ruled that the lien claims were not enforceable against the owners, and we agree.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mordecai Rosenholz and Freda Rosenholz v. Perrine Dev. Co., 340 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…the amount of the mechanic’s lien on this account would have no bearing upon the amount of judgment recovered by Perrine against James, the actual lessee of the equipment. Appellants have filed notice of reliance upon the case of Harden v. Harvey, 138 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1962), in which a mechanic’s lien was denied to a subcontractor who performed excavations for removal and sale of materials from the land. While we acknowledge a certain degree of factual similarity, we do not think the Harden case wou…