R. J. MARSHALL, APPELLANT,
v.
C. B. SCOTT, JR., D/B/A C. B. ELECTRIC, 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.
Marshall appealed a trial court order striking portions of an amended complaint seeking an equitable lien against Scott's electric company. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Scott's allegations were insufficient as a matter of law to state a cause of action for an equitable lien.
The complaint did not state a cause of action for an equitable lien because it failed to allege: (1) lack of an adequate remedy at law; (2) special or peculiar equities; (3) a written contract showing intent to charge property with the debt; (4) ultimate facts showing mistake, fraud, or misrepresentation; or (5) the appellant's insolvency or inability to pay. A mere broken promise to pay does not entitle one to equitable relief.
[1] A complaint seeking an equitable lien must allege the lack of an adequate remedy at law or special equities justifying the imposition of such a lien.
[2] The imposition of an equitable lien requires a written contract demonstrating an intention to charge specific property with a debt or obligation.
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“A careful reading of the complaint shows that the allegations are not sufficient to state a cause of action for an equitable lien. Appellee did not allege lack of an adequate remedy at law, or special or peculiar equities justifying the imposition of an equitable lien”
Establishes the core deficiency: insufficient allegations of equitable circumstances necessary for an equitable lien.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarshall contracted with Scott's electric company for electrical work. Marshall allegedly misrepresented that he would pay the contract price. Scott 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 Insolvency cases and more on FLexlaw
A careful reading of the complaint shows that the allegations are not sufficient to state a cause of action for an equitable lien. Appellee did not allege lack of an adequate remedy at law, or special or peculiar equities justifying the imposition of an equitable lien; Wood v. Wilson, Fla. 1955, 84 So.2d 32; Crane Co. v. Fine, Fla. 1969, 221 So.2d 145. There was no mention of a written contract which showed an intention to charge the particular property with a debt or obligation; Jones v. Carpenter, 1925, 90 Fla. 407, 106 So. 127. Neither was there an allegation of ultimate facts showing mistake, fraud, misrepresentation of essential facts or other wrongdoing which would entitle appellee to an equitable lien; Merritt v. Unkefer, Fla.1969, 223 So. 2d 723; Phillips Petroleum Company v. Schun Co., Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 491; Jennings v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 66.
Appellee did not allege ultimate facts showing appellant’s intention not to pay, or his insolvency or inability to pay, but merely alleged that appellant misrepresented that he would pay the contract price. This was not sufficient to state a cause of action for an equitable lien. The mere fact that a promise to pay is subsequently broken does not give rise to a cause of action for equitable relief. Otherwise any breach of contract would call for such a remedy. Prosser on Torts, 3rd Ed., p. 747; 37 Am. Jur., Fraud and Deceit, § 36, pp. 61 and 62.
We have carefully considered appellee’s point on appeal charging that the lower court erred in striking certain portions of its amended complaint, but find this contention to be without merit.
The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the amended complaint, without prejudice to the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
Reversed and remanded.
MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chase Manhattan Bank v. S/D Enters., Inc., 353 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…judged upon a breach of contract count, i. e., failure to fund construction monies pursuant to the supplemental loan agreement, which in and of itself will not give rise to equitable relief in the form of the imposition of a lien. Marshall v. Scott, 277 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). As for the lengthy and detailed final judgment, we find noticeably absent any finding by the chancellor to the effect that appellant engaged in any conduct tanta [*134] mount to the aforementioned fraud, affirmative deception an…
-
Architectonics, Inc. v. Salem-American Ventures, Inc., 350 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…emedy at law, as where the obligor is insolvent. Although dismissal for this reason is supported by Lewinson v. Shaw, supra, under the authority of that case the dismissal must be reversed insofar as it is with prejudice. See also Marshall v. Scott, 277 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). The original obligor, Salem, has not filed any paper in the trial court and has defaulted. There is nothing in the record which shows that Architectonics’ remedies at law are necessarily adequate. Architectonics may well be able…
-
Econ. Suppliers & Fabricators, Inc. v. Centennial Homes, Inc., 325 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…to which sums plaintiff would have at least a partial claim whether or not notice was [*423] filed. Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1969). Plaintiff claims an equitable lien, but such claim is also plead insufficiently. See Marshall v. Scott, 277 So. 2d 546 (Fla.App.2d 1973). We, therefore, affirm the dismissal of the complaint, but reverse that portion of the order dismissing with prejudice and remand with respectful directions to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint if he so wishes. See Fla.R.C.P…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morgan F. Jones in Bankr. of Jacksonville Bread Co. v. Carpenter, 106 So. 127 (Fla. 1925)
- Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1969)
- Condor Merritt et ux. v. Unkefer, 223 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1969)
- Jennings v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 177 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Wood v. Wilson, 84 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1955)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. & Fred Howland, Inc. v. The Schun Co., 222 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)