CONDOR MERRITT ET UX., PETITIONERS,
v.
EARL UNKEFER, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed the District Court of Appeal's decision allowing an architect to pursue an equitable lien on property for unpaid services. The Court held that absent fraud, misrepresentation, or similar equitable circumstances beyond those alleged, courts cannot grant equitable liens when statutory mechanic's lien remedies are available and have lapsed.
No. To entitle one to an equitable lien, there must be circumstances such as fraud or misrepresentation of essential facts. The Court found no elements of estoppel, resulting trust, or similar equitable doctrine supporting a lien on the property in the complaint's allegations. Failure to pursue a statutory lien remedy ordinarily precludes equity jurisdiction to accomplish the same result.
“To entitle one to such a lien there must be circumstances such as fraud or misrepresentation of essential facts upon which [the lender or contractor relied] in good faith”
Establishes the essential requirement of fraud or misrepresentation for equitable liens, citing Jennings v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Unkefer, an architect, sought to establish an equitable lien on property owned by petitioners Merritt for architectural services. Unkefer's…
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 Mechanic'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REHEARING GRANTED
The opinion of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in this cause1 details the allegations of respondent’s complaint seeking to establish, on property owned by petitioners, an equitable lien for architectural services. The appellate court reversed an order dismissing the complaint, the opinion concluding that the absence of allegation of facts such as misrepresentation or fraud was not fatal. Petition for writ of certiorari in this Court has been granted on the ground of conflict with the decision on this point in Jennings v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.: 2 “To entitle one to such a lien there must be circumstances such as fraud or misrepresentation of essential facts upon which *724the lender or contractor relied in good faith * * and with other cases including decisions based on the principle that failure to prosecute a right of statutory lien will ordinarily preclude the exercise of equity jurisdiction to accomplish the same result.3
In support of the complaint in this case respondent relies on the doctrine of estoppel based on a request to postpone billing until completion of the construction work, and on a promise to pay from proceeds of a condemnation proceeding which terminated later, after lapse of time for filing a mechanic’s lien. We are unable to trace the elements of estoppel, resulting trust, or any similar equitable doctrine in support of a lien on the property as opposed to the specified fund, which fund is in no way relevant to the disposition of this suit. Our study of the cases indicates that the award of an equitable lien based on unjust enrichment or “general consideration of right and justice” has in each instance been predicated on factors such as mistake or material misrepresentation beyond the circumstances described by the complaint in the present case.4
The judgment of reversal is accordingly quashed and the cause remanded with directions that the decree of the circuit court be affirmed.
ROBERTS, THORNAL, CALDWELL (Retired), and ADAMS (Retired), JJ., and MASON, Circuit Judge, concur.
ERVIN, C. J., dissents with opinion.
(dissenting):
I think the District Court’s decision in Unkefer v. Merritt, 207 So.2d 726, should stand. Accepting Respondent’s allegations as true at this point, if Petitioners had left Respondent alone and had not persuaded him through their attorneys to withhold his bill for architectural services until they received a condemnation award in a currently pending condemnation action, undoubtedly he would have timely filed claim for mechanic’s lien. Regardless of the niceties of equitable doctrines, this appears to be a clear case of a party to a contract foregoing his statutory claim by relying in good faith on the promises of the other party. The simple answer of equity should be that as between two parties to a contract for services when one of them requests the other to accommodate him by forbearing to press his claim for payment, the party extending the accommodation ought not be denied equitable relief.
ERVIN, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
I think the District Court’s decision in Unkefer v. Merritt, 207 So. 2d 726, should stand. Accepting Respondent’s allegations as true at this point, if Petitioners had left Respondent alone and had not persuaded him through their attorneys to withhold his bill for architectural services until they received a condemnation award in a currently pending condemnation action, undoubtedly he would have timely filed claim for mechanic’s lien. Regardless of the niceties of equitable doctrines, this appears to be a clear case of a party to a contract foregoing his statutory claim by relying in good faith on the promises of the other party. The simple answer of equity should be that as between two parties to a contract for services when one of them requests the other to accommodate him by forbearing to press his claim for payment, the party extending the accommodation ought not be denied equitable relief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Rinker Materials Corp. v. The Palmer First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Sarasota, 361 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1978)…pel. It is enough if the conduct claimed as a basis for the estoppel is done with actual or virtual intent that the other party should act upon it. At 704. The overwhelming weight of authority in Florida, however, is contra. In Merritt v. Unkefer, 223 So. 2d 723 (Fla.1969), this court clearly stated: Our study of the cases indicates that the award of an equitable lien based on unjust enrichment or “general consideration of right and justice” has in each instance been predicated on factors such as mistake o…
-
Hillman Constr. Corp. v. Wainer, 636 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…njust enrichment so as to make a dismissal on pleading grounds error. REVERSED. GLICKSTEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. . We do agree that the equitable lien count did not state a cause of action, and was not amendable to do so. Merritt v. Unkefer, 223 So. 2d 723 (Fla.1969).…
-
Hall v. Humana Hosp. Daytona Beach, 686 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…s an equitable remedy requiring proof that money had been paid due to fraud, misrepresentation, imposition, duress, undue influence, mistake, or as a result of some other grounds appropriate for intervention by a court of equity. Merritt v. Unkefer, 223 So. 2d 723 (Fla.1969). The mere fact that an overpayment of some sort has been demanded and payment made will not support the action. The basis alleged for equitable intervention in this case is “imposition.” An action for imposition is an action for money ha…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Green v. Putnam, 93 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1957)
- Jennings v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 177 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Unkefer v. Condor Merritt et ux., 207 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Rood Co., Inc. v. Luber, 91 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1956)
- O. H. Thomason Builders' Supplies, Inc. v. Orsbia Goodwin, 152 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)