LEROY C. ROBB, APPELLANT,
v.
LOTT PAVING COMPANY, INC., ET AL., 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.
A general contractor sought to enforce a mechanic's lien against both a lessee and the lessor-owner of property where improvements were made. The trial court dismissed the claim, but the appellate court reversed, holding that allegations of mandatory lease requirements for improvements were sufficient to extend the lien to the lessor's interest under Florida statutory law.
Yes. Taken as true, allegations that improvements were required by the lease agreement are sufficient to extend the lien to the lessor's interest. The trial court's dismissal was reversed because the statutory provision extends liens to the lessor's interest when improvements are made in accordance with an agreement between lessee and lessor.
[1] A mechanic's lien may extend to a lessor's interest in real property when an improvement is made by a lessee pursuant to an agreement between the lessee and the lessor.
[2] Allegations that improvements to leased premises were required by the terms of the lease agreement are sufficient to extend a mechanic's lien to the interest of the lesso…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“when an improvement is made by a lessee in accordance with an agreement between such lessee and his lessor, liens shall extend also to the interest of such lessor”
States the statutory requirement under F.S. Section 713.10 that allows liens to extend to the lessor's interest when improvements are made pursuant to a lease agreement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Robb, a general contractor, made improvements to real property pursuant to a contract with the lessee. The lease agreement contained clauses…
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 Enforcement Of Mechanic'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Chief Judge.
Appellant, a general contractor, having made certain improvements to real proper ty pursuant to a contract with the lessee thereof, sought to extend the statutory lien to the interest of the lessor-owner, Hunt Oil Company, by virtue of F.S. Section 713.10, F.S.A.1 The trial court dismissed appellant’s pleading,2 concluding that the allegations were insufficient to show a mandatory requirement on the part of the lessee to make any modification or improvement to the leased premises such as would permit the lien to extend to the interest of the lessor. We respectfully disagree and reverse. Regardless of what appellant may be able to prove, he alleged that the improvements made to the leased premises were required by the terms of the lease agreement. Taken as true, these allegations are sufficient to extend the lien to the interest of the lessor. Anderson v. Sokolik, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 511; Weed, Architect, Inc. v. Horning, 1947, 159 Fla. 847, 33 So. 2d 648; Jenkins v. Graham, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 330; Ideal Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Katzentine, Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 116.
One clause of the lease agreement provided that “. . . Tenant is privileged to enter upon the property as soon as the lease is signed, but prior to its commencement date, to commence modification and improvements to the building desired by Tenant”, which provision the trial court apparently construed as making optional with the tenant the matter of making the improvements. The very next sentence of the agreement provided, “These modifications and improvements shall be in a minimum amount of $30,000.00. . . .” When the two clauses are considered in conjunction it is clear that the former is merely a license granted the tenant to enter upon the premises prior to the commencement of the term for which the premises were demised.
The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur. . Section 713.10 Extent of liens — “ . [W]hen an improvement is made by a lessee in accordance with an agreement between such lessee and his lessor, liens shall extend also to the interest of such lessor. . . . ”
. This suit was initiated by a subcontractor seeking to enforce its mechanic’s lien, in which appellant and appellee were both named as defendants. Appellant’s pleading, seeking to enforce its lien against the interest of the owner, was actually a cross-claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Wright, 391 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…to build a farmer’s market. If approval was not given, either party could cancel the lease. Paragraph 11 required Wright to pay all taxes and assessments on the leasehold and on any improvements he constructed. Jones, citing Robb v. Lott Paving Co., 289 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), and Jenkins v. Graham, 237 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), argues that the language of Paragraphs 5 and 11 made the construction of improvements the “pith of the lease” and thereby subjected the leased property to a claim of lie…
-
Davidson Lumber Co. v. Sullivan, 403 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…d DCA 1959). See also Anderson v. Sokolik, 88 So. 2d 511 (Fla.1956); Brenner v. Smullian, 84 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla.1955); Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Food Fair Properties Agency, Inc., 309 So. 2d 219 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Robb v. Lott Paving Company, Inc., 289 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). [*562] In this case, it is clear that the parties contemplated some repair work. We find, however, nothing in either the terms of the lease or in the record which suggests that the Sullivans agreed to any extensive renovations o…
Authorities Cited
- Weed v. Horning, 159 Fla. 847 (Fla. 1947)
- Jenkins v. Graham, 237 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Anderson v. Sokolik, 88 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1956)
- Ideal Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Katzentine, 127 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)