SOL FELL AND FRANCES FELL, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
BENJAMIN MESSEROFF AND GUSSIE MESSEROFF, HIS WIFE; ROYAL FLAGG JONAS AND BARBARA JONAS, HIS WIFE; ALEXANDER FRED JONAS AND HENRIETTA JONAS, HIS WIFE; JOSEPH WEINSTOCK; STEPHEN F. KESSLER; DELTA PRODUCTS, INC.; COLEMAN CONCRETE, INC.; FRANK A. CARDELLI AND STOLPMANN PLUMBING CO., 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.
Property owners appealed a lower court decision imposing a mechanic's lien on their real property for wall-to-wall carpeting supplied to their lessee's apartment building. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that carpeting is not an 'improvement' under the Florida Mechanics' Lien Law and therefore suppliers of carpeting have no lien rights on real property.
Wall-to-wall carpeting is not an improvement under Florida's Mechanics' Lien Law, and therefore suppliers of carpeting have no lien on real property. The lien impressed in favor of Cardelli was reversed because mechanics' liens are entirely statutory in Florida and must be expressly created by statute.
“A mechanic's lien is entirely statutory in Florida, Sheffield-Briggs Steel Products, Inc. v. Ace Concrete Service Co., Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 924; and unless the lien is expressly created by Chapter 84, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., it does not exist.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that mechanics' liens exist only when expressly authorized by statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Fells owned real property subject to a ninety-nine year lease. The lessee erected an apartment house and ordered wall-to-wall carpeting supplied b…
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
Appellants were owners of certain real property upon which they gave a ninety-nine year lease. The lessee erected an apartment house upon the land and ordered wall-to-wall carpeting which was supplied by defendant, Cardelli. When this supplier was not paid, he filed a claim of lien against the fee. The appellant-owners brought the instant action to cancel the lease and to extinguish the claims of lien of the carpet supplier and others. By summary final decree the chancellor cancelled the lease and extinguished the liens against the fee simple title of all but defendant, Cardelli. By a subsequent “Final Decree to Impress Lien” a lien against the real property was impressed in favor of Car-delli.
The owners appeal, and urge that (1) wall-to-wall carpeting is not an “improvement” to the fee within the meaning of § 84.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. and, therefore, no lien exists; (2) the lease agreement *239did not contemplate the improvements involved and thus the fee cannot be charged. We find it necessary to reverse upon the basis that the Florida Mechanics’ Lien Law does not provide a lien to the supplier of carpets. We do not pass upon the second point stated.
A mechanic’s lien is entirely statutory in Florida, Sheffield-Briggs Steel Products, Inc. v. Ace Concrete Service Co., Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 924; and unless the lien is expressly created by Chapter 84, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., it does not exist.
Section 84.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides that a contractor, subcontractor, materialman or laborer shall have a lien on real property improved-1 We are not aware of a case in Florida, or in any other jurisdiction, deciding whether or not wall-to-wall carpeting is an improvement within the meaning of the Mechanics’ Lien Law. In any event, the courts of this country have applied the same general tests to determine whether an article furnished is encompassed within the Mechanics’ Lien Law as they have to determine in a particular case whether such article can be considered a fixture. [See the cases cited in footnotes 6, 7, and 8, 36 Am.Jur. Mechanics’ Liens § 78 (1941)]. Thus, the right to a lien on the realty is conclusive when it has been determined that the article furnished has so become a part of the realty as to be a fixture.
Applicable cases are almost unanimous to the effect that carpeting is not a fixture. See annotation at 55 A.L.R.2d 1044. We conclude, therefore, that carpeting is not an improvement, and therefore no lien upon the real property is provided to its supplier by the Florida Mechanics’ Lien Law. Compare American Welding & Tank Co. v. De Soto Brewing Co., 129 Fla. 89, 175 So. 803. The “Final Decree to Impress Lien” is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morris & Esher, Inc. v. Olympia Enters., Inc., 200 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…e research has produced no case which directly discusses this problem. A mechanics’ lien is entirely statutory in Florida and unless the lien is expressly created by Chapter 84, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., it does not exist. Fell v. Messeroff, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 238. Section 84.051, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., gives a contractor a lien for any service furnished under the direct contract. To determine whether the above amounts were lienable items we must consider the terms of the direct contract between the owner and con…
-
Beautyware Plumbing Supply Co., Inc. v. Columbiad Apts., Inc., 215 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…terials. But Cf. Surf Properties v. Markowitz Bros., Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 298. . Now F.S. Section 713.02(4), F.S.A.1967. . Now F.S. Section 713.01(6), F.S.A.1967. .Nathman v. Chryey, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 782. .Fell v. Messeroff, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 238. .Shaw v. Del-Mar Cabinet Co., Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 264; Leedy v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Cocoa, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 99.…
-
O'Kon & Co., Inc. v. Riedel, 540 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…creatures of statute, and must be strictly construed. See Falovitch v. Gunn & Gunn Construction Company, 348 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977). Also, unless the lien is expressly created by the mechanics’ lien law, it does not exist. Fell v. Messeroff, 145 So. 2d 238, 239 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1962). It is undisputed that O’Kon, as a corporate entity, complied with none of the statutory provisions regarding certificate of authority, registration, or licensing. Appellant has not shown how it substantially fol [*842] lowe…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sheffield-Briggs Steel Prods., Inc. v. Ace Concrete Serv. Co., Inc., 63 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1953)
- Am. Welding & Tank Co. v. DeSoto Brewing Co., 129 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1937)