STRONGER COLLISSION

v.

NORTH AMERICA SPECIALTY INS.

WALSH, J.

Appellant, Stronger Collision Center, LLC, a mechanic, incurred damages related to its time and labor in fixing and storing an Audi vehicle. Appellant filed a mechanic’s lien, naming the lienholder, Vehicle Solutions, [*2] Corp. (2019-1155-CC-05) (Lienholder), as well as the owner of the vehicle. The Lienholder, together with North American Specialty Insurance Company (2018-24166-SP-05) (Surety), posted a bond to recover the vehicle. Appellant filed two actions against the Surety and Lienholder to recover against the mechanic’s lien bond. Both the Lienholder and the Surety moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted both motions. The issue in this consolidated appeal of both orders is whether the failure to strictly comply with the statutory requirements set forth in Section 713.585(1), Florida Statutes, rendered the mechanic’s lien fatally deficient and unenforceable.

The standard of review from an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Delta Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 937 So. 2d 695, 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), citing Fayad v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 899 So. 2d 1082, 1084 (Fla. 2005); Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 2001); Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000).

The mechanic’s lien statute sets forth the precise required contents for a notice of lien. Specifically, Section 713.585(1)(o), Florida Statutes (2018) requires that the notice of lien must “[c]ontain notice that a lienholder, if any, has the right, as specified in subsection (5), to demand a hearing or to post a bond.” The Lienholder and Surety argued below, and the trial court agreed [*3] that the notice of lien omitted this requirement and was therefore fatally deficient.

Appellant argues that while the notice failed to advise the lienholder of its right to post a bond, it did contain the following notices which would advise “any person” with an interest of their right to post a bond: Additionally, Appellant points out that the Lienholder and Surety did, in fact, post a bond, and therefore, they suffered no prejudice as a result of the alleged notice deficiency.

Appellant points to the construction lien statute, section 713.08, which also provides the required contents of and form for providing notice of lien. The form is contained in section (3) of the statute and allows for enforcement by substantial compliance: (3) The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning:

* * * However, the negligent inclusion or omission of any [*4] information in the claim of lien which has not prejudiced the owner does not constitute a default that operates to defeat an otherwise valid lien.

Additionally, to prevent enforcement of the lien, the construction lien statute places a burden on a person adversely affected by the lien: (4)(a) The omission of any of the foregoing details or errors in such claim of lien shall not, within the discretion of the trial court, prevent the enforcement of such lien as against one who has not been adversely affected by such omission or error. In contrast, the mechanic’s lien statute, section 713.585, Florida Statutes, contains no statutory provision allowing for enforcement by substantial compliance. Nor does the mechanic’s lien statute require that a lienholder or other interested party demonstrate prejudice to avoid enforcement. The mechanic’s lien statute must be strictly construed. Sheffield–Briggs Steel Prods., Inc. v. Ace Concrete Serv. Co., 63 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 1953) (“Mechanics' liens are purely creatures of the statute. In order to acquire a lien or obtain priority over other lienors, the positive mandate of the statute must be observed”). Strict construction requires neither more nor less than what the statute requires. Accordingly, in Home Electric of Dade County, Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So. 2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1989), the Court enforced a lien where the lienor failed to provide a compliance date, because no such requirement was set forth by the statute. Because mechanics liens are strictly construed, neither [*5] substantial compliance nor lack of prejudice will excuse a deficiency: The fact that no prejudice has been nor can be shown is not the determining factor in this case; nor is it significant that Stresscon substantially complied with the mechanics' lien law. The courts have permitted substantial compliance or adverse effect to be considered in determining the validity of a lien when there are specific statutory exceptions which permit their consideration.

Stresscon v. Madiedo, 581 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1991) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). In other words, unless the statute itself mentions them, “substantial compliance” and “prejudice” are legally irrelevant. Here, regardless of the Lienholder’s lack of prejudice or the mechanic’s substantial compliance with the statute, the lower court correctly denied enforcement of this lien for failure of the mechanic to expressly provide notice to the Lienholder of the right to post bond. We affirm. TRAWICK and REBULL, JJ., concur.