CHARLES A. BOUX, APPELLANT,
v.
EAST HILLSBOROUGH APARTMENTS, 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.
This case concerns whether a subcontractor's failure to provide a statutory notice to the owner of a property bars their lien claim when the owner and the contractor are effectively the same entity. The court held that the notice requirement was satisfied because the owner, through its officers who also controlled the contracting company, had actual knowledge of the subcontractor's claim.
No, the failure to file the statutory notice does not bar the lien claim in this instance because the owner had actual knowledge of the subcontractor's claim, and the owner and contractor were effectively the same entity.
“The purpose of the notice is to protect an owner from the possibility of paying over to his contractor sums which ought to go to a subcontractor who remains unpaid.”
Explains the purpose of the statutory notice requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoux, a subcontractor, performed plastering work for East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc. East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc. was wholly owned by Su-Jak …
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 Notice To Owner Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc., owner of the property against which a lien is claimed, is a corporation wholly owned by Su-Jak Enterprises, Inc., which contracted with Boux for plastering. Boux contends that he is in privity with the owner under these circumstances and that his failure to file the notice to owner, required of those not in privity by Florida Statutes § 713.06(2), F.S.A. should not have caused the dismissal of his second amended complaint. We agree.
The purpose of the notice is to protect an owner from the possibility of paying over to his contractor sums which ought to go to a subcontractor who remains unpaid. The burden is on the subcontractor to insure that the owner knows of his claim. That purpose is fulfilled here. It cannot be said that Mr. and Mrs. Mash-burn, the officers of both corporations, were ignorant of this claim. Cases cited us by the appellee to the effect that the corporate veil cannot be pierced in the absence of a showing of fraud and deceptive intent are beside the point. This case is more like Maule Industries, Inc. v. Gaines Construction Co., Inc., Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 835.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Buck, 594 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1992)…possibility of paying over to his contractor sums which ought to go to a subcontractor who remains unpaid.’ ” Broward Atlantic Plumbing Co. v. R.L.P., Inc., 402 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (quoting Boux v. East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc., 218 So. 2d 202, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)). In other words, as the trial court recognized, the notice requirement is just that, a notice to the owner that those not in privity with the owner are in fact providing improvements to the property. Because the purpose of s…
-
Symons Corp. v. Tartan-Lavers Delray Beach, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ion is that the requirements of the mechanics’ lien statute can be satisfied by showing that Tartan-Laver had constructive knowledge of the notice to owner. Symons relies upon two cases for this position: Boux v. East Hills-borough Apartments, Inc., 218 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) and Broward Atlantic Plumbing Co. v. R.L.P., Inc., 402 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Both cases, however, are inapposite. They involve subcontractors who were deemed to be in privity with the owners and, therefore, not subject t…1 / 2
-
Vance D. Bishop and Joseph F. Putnam v. James A. Knowles, Inc., 292 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…heir building. The notice of intent to claim a lien is a notification that pursuant to the statute the subcontractor is looking to the owner for payment. We do not overlook the case of Boux v. East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc., Fla. App.2nd, 1969, 218 So. 2d 202. In that case this court held that where the land-owning corporation was a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporate contractor and both corporations had common officers, the failure to file a notice to owner did not deprive a subcontractor of his li…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maule Indus., Inc. v. Gaines Constr. Co., Inc., 157 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)