FLORIDA BUILDERS, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY AT WEST PALM BEACH, A CORPORATION, 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.
Florida Builders, Inc., as prime contractor, appeals a judgment for money owed to Florida National Bank under a financing arrangement involving a subcontractor's work certificates. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the financing arrangement valid and the payment obligations enforceable based on the work-in-place certificates that the prime contractor had acknowledged for 17 weeks.
The trial court's judgment was affirmed. The financing arrangement was valid and enforceable. The prime contractor's acknowledgment of work-in-place certificates over 17 weeks, combined with its prior payments on similar statements, created enforceable payment obligations to the bank as the subcontractor's assignee.
“This financing arrangement was not an unusual one; it merely provided that the prime contractor, following a certificate that work had been completed, would pay to the bank monies advanced on said certificates as they matured.”
Establishes that the financing arrangement was standard and enforceable based on work-in-place certificates.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Builders subcontracted with East Coast Floor Company for housing project work in Key West. The subcontractor assigned payment rights to appell…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, •seeks review of an adverse final judgment •entered in a non-jury case for money due •and owing.
The appellant, as prime contractor, subcontracted with East Coast Floor Company to furnish certain work, materials and labor relating to a housing project in Key West, Florida. The sub-contract provided that the sub-contractor was to receive monthly payments for work completed and accepted for the month prior to payment. Subsequently, the sub-contractor entered into an assignment of the monies to be due under the said contract to the appellee herein to secure loans and advances. Said assignment was acknowledged by the appellant herein. Thereafter, the appellant’s project manager executed a statement [or letter], setting out the amount of work completed or “work in place” each week by the sub-contractor and the sub-contractor took these statements to the appellee bank and borrowed money based on the statements. Some 17 such statements were so negotiated, and the appellant made payment upon them to the appellee. The cause of action arose out of 5 statements which the appellee had accepted and loaned money on to the sub-contractor. The statements were for August 31, 1961 and September 7, 14, 21 and 28, 1961. When these statements were forwarded to the appellant, it refused payment, claiming the sub-contractor defaulted October 6, 1961. Suit was instituted. The parties stipulated to a non-jury trial. At the close of all the evidence, the trial court entered the judgment appealed.
The appellant has urged several points for reversal of the final judgment, none of which do we find to have merit. This financing arrangement was not an unusual one; it merely provided that the prime contractor, following a certificate that work had been completed, would pay to the bank monies advanced on said certificates as they matured. It appears that the acknowl-edgements of the “work in place” ware in accordance with the terms of the subcontract, were recognized for a period of 17 weeks as sufficient indications of “work in place” to permit the bank to loan monies on said certificates and which, in turn, were honored by the appellant by paying the monies due under the sub*250contract to the bank, the assignee thereof for the purpose of receiving payments thereunder.
The judgment of the trial court arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Cf. Ward v. Miami Lock & Hardware Co., Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 395; Ross v. Florida Sun Life Insurance Company, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 892; Bardee Corporation v. Arnold Altex Aluminum Co., Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 268. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any error in the proceedings in the trial court. Mellet v. Henry, Fla.App. 1959, 108 So.2d 69; Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Pearlman, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 601; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App. 1961, 134 So.2d 801. To the contrary, the record on appeal reveals that the trial judge correctly applied the principles of law, enunciated in Willcox v. Stephenson, 30 Fla. 377, 11 So. 659; Lalow v. Codomo, Fla.1958, 101 So.2d 390, to the facts as revealed by the evidence, and the judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fred S. Conard Constr. Co. v. Exch. Bank of St. Augustine, 178 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…all provisions of the subcontract with Solana in the same sense as the contractor in Geo. G. Tapper Company, Inc. v. Bank of Fort Walton, supra. Appellee strongly relies on Florida Builders, Inc. v. Florida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. at West Palm Beach, 161 So. 2d 248 (Fla. App. 1964), but appellant insists and we agree that said case is not in point. The decision therein does not indicate that the court was confronted with a situation where, as in this case, payments to the assignee were conditioned upon complet…1 / 2
-
Fla. First Nat'l Bank AT KEY W. v. Fryd Constr. Corp., 245 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…es the contractor is obligated to make future payments through the Bank, thus the Bank can aid the debtor in financing the job. This position seems to us to make good sense. Cf. Florida Builders, Inc. v. Florida Nat. Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App. 1964, 161 So. 2d 248. The obvious purpose of the assignment of the payments under the contract was to secure bank financing of the job. The assignment was not for a specific amount then due but rather it was an assignment for all future payments. Having secured the $5,0…
-
Fred S. Conrad Constr. Co. v. The Exch. Bank OF ST. Augustine, 178 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…in the Boulevard National Bank of Miami case. For the reasons and upon the authorities above cited, I would affirm the summary judgment appealed. . Florida Builders, Inc. v. Florida National Bank & Trust Company at West Palm Beach, (Fla.App.1964) 161 So. 2d 248. . George G. Tapper Company, Inc. v. Bank of Fort Walton, (Fla.App.1959) 117 So. 2d 8. . Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Air Metal Industries, Inc., et al., (Fla.1965) 176 So. 2d 94.…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Lalow v. Codomo, 101 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1958)
- Hervey S. Ross v. Fla. SUN Life Ins. Co., 124 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Brown v. Householder, 134 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Martin v. Green, 134 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Mellet v. Henry, 108 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Wilcox v. Stephenson, 30 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1892)
- Green-Mar Builders, Inc. v. Jules Pearlman, 109 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Ward v. Miami Lock & Hardware Co., 119 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)