CLIFFORD RUSSELL AND PATRICIA RUSSELL, HIS WIFE, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FARREY'S WHOLESALE HARDWARE CO., INC., A FLORIDA 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.
The court held that substantial compliance with the mechanic's lien statute is sufficient, and the appellants failed to show injury from any non-compliance.
A material-man supplied electrical fixtures for a construction project, but was not fully paid. The material-man filed an action to perfect a mechanic…
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 Substantial Compliance With Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants, by this appeal, raise the propriety of the trial court’s action in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Appellants are the owners, mortgagee, general contractor, and tenant of a certain piece of property which was improved by the appellee, material-man, to the extent of $12,313.75, $8,160.00 of which was not paid. The improvement consisted of electrical fixtures supplied for the construction of a building on the land. When the balance due was not paid, appellee instituted the instant action to perfect a mechanics’ lien pursuant to Chapter 84, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the material-man, imposing a mechanic’s lien upon the property.
Inasmuch as Chapter 84 has been extensively revised by the most recent session of the Legislature,1 and many of the sections of that chapter which are relevant here, have been repealed, it would serve no useful purpose to consider their import in detail. Suffice it to say that the courts require substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute,2 and such has been the case here. The lower court correctly granted the mechanics’ lien on the basis of appellee’s substanial compliance with the statute, and appellants’ failure to demonstrate how appellee’s failure to strictly comply with the statute, injured appellants.
A careful examination of the record demonstrates there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. Therefore, the trial court’s finding in this regard was not error.
Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yell-For-Pennell, Inc. v. Joab, Inc., 243 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…t the landowner was prejudiced by the form of the claim. See § 713.08(3) and (4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; George J. Motz Construction Corp. v. Coral Pines, Inc., Fla.App. 1970, 232 So. 2d 441; and Russell v. Farrey’s Wholesale Hardware Co., Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 513. Accordingly, the final judgment for defendant is reversed and the cause is remanded for further action consistent herewith. It is so ordered.…
-
Adobe Brick & Supply Co. v. Centex-Winston Corp. & Richard L. Aycock Plastering, Inc., 270 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ffected by such omission or error.” Yell-For-Pennell, Inc. v. Joab, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 438; George J. Motz Construction Corp. v. Coral Pines, Inc., Fla.App. 1970, 232 So. 2d 441; Russell v. Farrey’s Wholesale Hardware Co., Fla. App.1964, 163 So. 2d 513; Florida New Deal Co. v. Crane Co., 142 Fla. 471, 194 So. 865. Here at the stage of the case when judgment was entered for the defendant, which was at the close of the presentation of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, not only was there no showi…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. New Deal Co. v. Crane Co., 142 Fla. 471 (Fla. 1940)
- Roughan v. Rogers, 145 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1940)