M. FRITZ, AS TRUSTEE, ALSO KNOWN AS MARIE B. FRITZ, ET VIR,
v.
MIAMI INDUSTRIAL BANK
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 that a mortgagee's lien on a vehicle takes priority over a repair garage's mechanic's lien when the mortgage was recorded before the repair work was performed. The court rejected the common law principle that mechanics' liens are universally superior, holding instead that under Florida statute, a laborer's lien is only prior to liens 'accruing thereafter.'
The mortgagee's lien has priority. Under Florida statute Section 5363, a laborer's lien is prior only to liens 'accruing thereafter,' meaning liens that arise after the labor is performed. Since Miami Industrial Bank's mortgage was recorded months before the repair work was performed, it retained priority dignity over the subsequently accruing mechanic's lien.
“Section 5363, supra, in terms makes the laborer's lien prior in dignity to all others "accruing thereafter."”
Establishes the statutory basis for the court's holding that mechanics' liens only have priority over subsequently arising liens, not pre-existing mortgages.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 8, 1938, Caroline B. Henley executed a $350 promissory note to Miami Industrial Bank secured by a recorded mortgage on a Dodge automobile. A…
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 Priority cases and more on FLexlaw
August 8, 1938, Caroline B. Henley executed her note in the sum of $350.00 in favor of Miami Industrial Bank secured by a mortgage on a certain Dodge automobile. The mortgage was recorded but subsequent to its recordation, the mortgagor placed the automobile in the hands of P. & A. Garage for repairs. After the repairs *343were made, the mortgagor failed to pay for them so the automobile was sold by the repair man in the manner provided by Section 5384, Compiled General Laws of 1927. It was purchased by the appellants.
On learning of the sale, Miami Industrial Bank instituted suit to foreclose its mortgage at the same time attaching the automobile. Answer to the bill of complaint was filed, to which motion to strike was granted and final judgment was entered for the complainant. This appeal is from the final decree.
The question presented may be stated as follows: Whose lien is entitled to priority of payment, that of the Miami Industrial Bank as security for its note or that of P. & A. Garage for repairs on the automobile ?
Appellant contends that under the common law, a mechanic had a lien prior in dignity to all others for labor performed or for materials furnished in the repair of any chattel and that Section 5384, Compiled General Laws of 1927, did nothing more than provide a method to realize on the common law lien. Appellee contends on' the other hand, that Section 5384, supra, is a part of the general scheme for foreclosing laborer’s liens and that it must be read and construed in connection with other statutes on the subject, particularly Sections 5363, 5371, 5379, and 5382, Compiled General Laws of 1927.
Section 5363, supra, in terms makes the laborer’s lien prior in dignity to all others “accruing thereafter.” The mortgage of the Miami Industrial Bank was on record months prior to the performance of the labor so it was prior in dignity to the latter lien. The chancellor so construed the Act and the decisions of this Court have concluded the question. Flynn-Harris, Bullard Company v. *344Johnson, 90 Fla. 654, 107 So. 358; Griffin v. Hulion, 90 Fla. 582, 107 So. 354.
We have not overlooked the cases relied on by appellant, some of which apparently support their contention, but this Court has applied the contrary rule which is supported by the numerical weight of and better reasoned authority. The question is one of interpretation and we find no reason to reverse the chancellor or our former holdings.
His judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson Tractor Co. v. Square Deal Mach. & Supply Co., 149 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…ent of the purchase price. It was not a chattel mortgage that was required to be recorded in order to be valid against creditors or subsequent purchasers, Section 698.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The decision in Fritz v. Miami Industrial Bank, 1940, 143 Fla. 342, 196 So. 689, dealt-with a recorded chattel mortgage, so that decision is not determinative of the question here. Furthermore, the tractor was not a “motor vehicle” as defined.by Section 319.20, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and, therefore, Section 319.…
-
G.F.C. Corp. v. Spradlin, 38 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1949)
-
Avery Leach Tyler v. Fla. Nat'l Bank AT Opa-Locka, 197 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Fritz v. Miami Industrial Bank, 143 Fla. 342, 196 So. 689; Richardson Tractor Company v. Square Deal Machinery & Supply Company, Fla.App.1963, 149 So. 2d 388; 21 Fla. Jur., Liens, §§ 31, 43.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffith v. Hulion, 90 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1925)
- Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co. v. Johnson, 90 Fla. 654 (Fla. 1925)