THOMAS MEAD AND G. M. MEAD, CO-PARTNERS TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF THOMAS MEAD & SON, APPELLANTS,
v.
PETER PICOTTE AND MAX J. KLEIN, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lien foreclosure case, holding that the lien notice did not comply with statutory requirements for property held as an estate by entireties.
No, the notice of lien did not comply with the statutory provisions for acquiring and enforcing a lien against property held as an estate by entireties.
“Chapter 9296, supra, provides the exclusive method by which a statutory lien may be acquired and enforced by a laborer or materialman against property held by husband and wife as an estate by entireties.”
Explains the statutory basis for the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, Thomas Mead & Son, sued to foreclose a lien for labor and materials furnished to appellee Picotte, who held the property with his wife as …
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 Foreclosure Of Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case suit was brought by the appellants against the appellees to enforce an alleged lien for labor and material furnished by the appellants to the appellee Picotte by the foreclosure of the lien on certain described property alleged to have been improved by the labor and material furnished. On final hearing the chancellor decreed that the equities were with the defendant Klein (who was made a party defendant because the title to the property rested in him at the time of the institution of the suit) and the bill was dismissed, from which decree appeal was taken.
The only interest in the property which is shown by the record to have been possessed by the appellee Picotte was that the property was conveyed to Picotte and wife *326and constituted an estate by entireties. The record showed no effort to have been made by the appellants to comply with the provisions of Section 1 of Chapter 9296, Acts of 1923, Section 5360 C. G-. L. 1927.
The purported notice of lien attached to the declaration and introduced in evidence does not comply. with the provisions of Section 1 of Chapter 9296, Acts of 1923, Section 5360 0. G. L. of Fla., 1927, nor with Section 2 of the said Act, being Section 5361 C. G. L. of Fla., 1927. Chapter 9296, supra, provides the exclusive method by which a statutory lien may be acquired and enforced by a laborer or materialman against property held by husband and wife as an estate by entireties.
For the reasons stated the decree appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldsmith v. Orange Belt Sec. Co., 115 Fla. 683 (Fla. 1934)…by entireties is statutory, and one seeking to enforce such lien must allege existence of statutory provisions under which such lien may be acquired.” See also Ft. Meade Hotel Co. v. Knoxville Iron Co., 99 Fla. 947, 127 Sou. 896; Meade v. Picotte, 101 Fla. 325, 134 Sou. 57. Applying the rule of ejusdem generis to the statute here under consideration, we must hold that the lien provided could only be acquired by one who performs labor or furnishes material in the construction, alteration or repair of build…
-
Madeleine L. Browne v. Park, 144 Fla. 696 (Fla. 1940)…on the claimant of the lien to show or fully establish a strict compliance with each statutory provision. See Drake Lumber Co. v. Semple, 100 Fla. 1757, 130 So. 577, 75 A. L. R. 687; Rathburn v. Landess, 100 Fla. 507, 129 So. 738; Meade v. Picotte, 101 Fla. 325, 134 So. 57. It is next contended that the entire costs of the plumbing and fixtures placed in the hotel by the plaintiff below for which the lien was obtained, was charged against the two-thirds undivided interest of appellant in the hotel, and th…