W. E. MARTIN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., RIVER SHORES SUBDIVISION, INC., R. P. L. ENTERPRISES, INC., CHARLES T. CHURCH, II, AND W. E. MARTIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
SCOTT D. LINN AND WAVA B. LINN, HIS WIFE, 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.
Martin Construction Company was held liable for $6,419.33 to plaintiffs in a contract dispute. The court affirmed the judgment against the construction company but vacated the portion that imposed a lien on real property not in the defendant's name, finding that portion unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
The court affirmed the monetary judgment of $6,419.33 against Martin Construction Company but vacated the portion of the judgment that imposed a lien on the real property, as that portion was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] A judgment lien may not attach to real property unless supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] A court may vacate a portion of a judgment that is not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the lien of this judgment on real property legal title to which was not in said Martin Construction Company”
Describes the core problem the appellants raised on appeal—the judgment purported to attach a lien to property the defendant did not own.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin Construction Company and related defendants were sued by the Linns for breach of contract. The trial court entered judgment for $6,374.83 plus …
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 Judgment Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants who were defendants below bring up for our review a final judgment which adjudicated that Martin Construction Company was liable to the plaintiffs for $6,419.33 and impressed the lien of this judgment on real property legal title to which was not in said Martin Construction Company, also referred to as W. E. Martin Construction Company, Inc.
The pertinent portions of the final judgment read as follows:
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows :
“1. That the Plaintiffs do have and recover from the Defendant, MARTIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, judgment in the amount of Six Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four Dollars, Eighty Three Cents ($6,374.83) together with costs in the amount of Forty Four Dollars, Fifty Cents ($44.50) for a total judgment of Six Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen Dollars, Thirty Three Cents ($6,419.33) for which sum let execution issue.
“2. That the lien of Plaintiffs’ judgment shall extend to and attach to the following described property.
Lot 1, RIVERSHORES, as recorded in Plat Book 20, Page 74, Public Records of Brevard County, Florida. Lots 14, 18, 27, 28, 32 and 39 through 43 inclusive, Block A RIVERSHORES FIRST ADDITION, as recorded in Plat Book 20, pages 131, 132, Public Records of Brevard County, Florida. Lots 11 and 12, Block B RIVER-SHORES FIRST ADDITION, as recorded in Plat Book 20, pages 131 and 132 Public Records of Brevard County
and that execution and levy may be had on the above described property in the same manner as if it were standing in the name of Defendant W. E. Martin Construction Company, Inc. That said judgment lien shall be prior and superior to any lien attaching to said property since the filing of the Lis Pendens herein.”
On the basis of our review of the record, and particularly those portions thereof called to our attention by the parties, we conclude that numbered paragraph 2 of the judgment quoted above is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, that portion of the judgment is vacated. Except as otherwise stated, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; vacated in part.
WALDEN and REED, JJ., and WILLIAMS, ROBERT L., Associate Judge, concur.