DOROTHY STEVENS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SHAWN CROWDER, 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.
Crowder claimed an equitable lien on a duplex property for improvements he made in good faith while holding an unrecorded deed, after the property owners conveyed it to a third party who recorded their deed. The court affirmed an award of $1,290 in damages for beneficial improvements, holding that an equitable lien arises when someone makes improvements in good faith under a mistaken belief about title.
The court held that an equitable lien arises on property when a person in good faith and under mistake as to the condition of title makes improvements that are permanently beneficial to the property, and that Crowder was entitled to recover the expenses incurred for such improvements as a lien on the property.
[1] An equitable lien on property may arise where a person in good faith, and under a mistake as to title, makes improvements or incurs expenses that are permanently benefici…
[2] An equitable lien can be declared by a court of equity based on general considerations of right and justice applied to the parties' relationship and the circumstances of…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“an equitable lien on property benefited arises where a person in good faith and under mistake as to condition of the title, makes improvements, renders services, or incurs expenses that are permanently beneficial to another's property”
Establishes the legal standard for equitable liens in good faith improvement cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrowder obtained an unrecorded power of attorney and deed to a duplex from James and Brenda Stevens in lieu of a $200 loan, $500 automobile, and mortg…
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 Equitable Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-appellants appeal from a final judgment awarding the plaintiff the sum of $1,290 as damages for improvements permanently beneficial to the subject property.
At trial, plaintiff Crowder testified that in lieu of a $200 loan, a $500 automobile and payment of delinquent mortgage payments, defendants, James and Brenda Stevens, executed to plaintiff a power of attorney by which plaintiff could deed to himself a duplex owned by them. Subsequently, plaintiff executed such a deed and made certain improvements upon the property. However, this deed was never recorded. Sometime thereafter, on February 24, 1969, defendants, James and Brenda Stevens, conveyed the property to defendant Dorothy Stevens who recorded her deed. Plaintiff filed suit on July 16, 1969 to have the conveyance to Dorothy Stevens set aside and to have title vest solely in himself. He also sought to obtain a money judgment in excess of $5,000 for monies expended by him for improvements to the property. Defendant James Stevens counterclaimed to obtain a money judgment for *794certain personal property allegedly converted by the plaintiff. The trial court (1) dismissed the counterclaim, (2) held that the deed of record to Dorothy Stevens is valid, and (3) awarded the plaintiff the sum of $4,201.98 for monies expended on the property, such sum being reduced by the court to $1,290 on rehearing.
On appeal, appellants are challenging the award of $1,290 as damages for improvements permanently beneficial to the subject property. This challenge is based primarily on the contention that appellee Crowder had notice of the existence of the adverse claim of Dorothy Stevens. However, a search of the record on appeal reveals that appellee had no knowledge of any adverse claims until Dorothy Stevens moved into the duplex on the property. Prior to this move, all improvements by appellee had been completed.
It is well established that an equitable lien on property benefited arises where a person in good faith and under mistake as to condition of the title, makes improvements, renders services, or incurs expenses that are permanently beneficial to another’s property. Dewing v. Nelson & Co., Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 744; Johns v. Gillian, 134 Fla. 575, 184 So. 140 (1938). Thus, unjust enrichment of the owner thereof at the expense of the claimant is prevented. Further, an equitable lien is one which may be declared by a court of equity out of general consideration of right and justice as applied to relations by the parties and the circumstance of their dealings in the particular case. Insurance Company of Texas v. Rainey, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 447; Johnson v. Craig, 158 Fla. 254, 28 So.2d 696 (1947). Therefore, we hold the lower court correct in finding appellee was entitled to the expenses he had incurred in improving the subject property and that the expenses so incurred would become a lien thereon.
We have reviewed appellants’ remaining points on appeal and appellee’s points on cross appeal and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levine v. Fieni McFARLANE, Inc., 690 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ould be reversed. Plaintiff cites two cases which it claims stand for the proposition that the cost to the improver of the property can be recovered in an unjust enrichment case. Although there were statements to that effect in Stevens v. Crowder, 273 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), and Horton v. O’Rourke, 321 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), the method of determining compensation did not appear to be in issue in those cases. One of the cases, Horton, was impliedly overruled in Coffee Pot Plaza Partnership v.…
-
McPherson v. Jeffrey and Flora Redding, 323 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…s property. There is no such lien where expenditures are made with knowledge of the real state of the title. Johns v. Gillian, 134 Fla. 575, 184 So. 140 (1938); Dewing v. Nelson & Co., Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 744; Stevens v. Crowder, Fla.App. 1973, 273 So. 2d 793. When Tripp & Snyder on June 24, 1974 tendered back to plaintiffs their check for $200 and informed them that McPherson did not sign the agreement for deed, it was clear that title to the property remained in McPherson. Nevertheless, with full know…
-
Rose v. Clinton, 595 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Johns v. Gillian, 134 Fla. 575, 184 So. 140 (1938); Stevens v. Crowder, 273 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
Authorities Cited
- Johns v. Gillian, 134 Fla. 575 (Fla. 1938)
- Johnson v. Craig, 158 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1946)
- The Ins. Co. OF Tex. v. Rainey, 86 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1956)
- Dewing v. Nelson & Co., Inc., 117 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)