CENTEX-WINSTON CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CROWN PAINT, INC., 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.
An error or omission in a claim of lien under the mechanic's lien law will not prevent foreclosure if the party has not been adversely affected by the error.
[1] Mechanic's lien laws are remedial in nature and are liberally construed to protect laborers and materialmen.
[2] An error or omission in a claim of lien will not prevent foreclosure if the party against whom the lien is sought has not been adversely affected by the error or omission…
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 intelligenceAppellee supplied materials to a subcontractor on a construction project owned by appellant. The notice to owner incorrectly listed the owner as the p…
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 Notice To Owner cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, the Centex-Winston Corporation, seeks review of a final judgment of $17,359.62 in favor of the plaintiff-appellee in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. We affirm.
Appellant contends that the appellee failed to designate the contractor, Arcus Dry Wall, Inc., to which it was providing paint and other supplies in a notice to owner in accordance with Fla.Stat. § 713.-06, F.S.A. Therefore, appellant concludes that the lien is invalid.
The record demonstrates that the notice to owner informed the appellant that the appellee was supplying materials to the Winston Towers condominium project in Miami Beach. Appellant is the owner and developer of the project. On the notice form in the space providing under whose order the materials were being supplied appeared, “Sen Tex-Winston Corp.” instead of Arcus, the contractor whom the appel-lee was supplying as a subcontractor. Appellant argues that it therefore paid Arcus after being informed that all subcontractors had been paid and that it was unaware that appellee had not been paid.
However, we point out that the mechanic’s lien law is remedial in nature and is liberally construed to protect the laborer and the materialman. Crane Co. v. Fine, Fla.1969, 221 So. 2d 145; Art Berman Concrete, Inc. v. Sey Construction Corp., Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 791.
An error or omission in a claim of lien under the mechanic’s lien law will not prevent the foreclosure of the lien against one who has not been adversely affected by the error or omission. Fla.Stat. § 713.-08(4) (a), F.S.A., George J. Motz Construction Corp. v. Coral Pines, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 441; Yell-For-Pennell, Inc. v. Joab, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 438; Adobe Brick and Supply Co. v. Centex-Winston Corp., Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 755.
We have reviewed the record and have concluded that the appellant has failed to make a sufficient showing that it was adversely affected by the error on the notice to owner. Therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mid-State Contractors, Inc. v. Halo Dev. Corp., 342 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…mended complaint, specifically identify the amount owed to it by Halo. We believe that this result best fulfills the standards for interpretation under the Mechanics’ Lien Law. As succinctly stated in Centex-Winston Corporation v. Crown Paint, Inc., 294 So. 2d 694, 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). “ . . . [T]he mechanic’s lien law is remedial in nature and is liberally construed to protect the laborer and the materialman. Crane Co. v. Fine, Fla.1969, 221 So. 2d 145; Art Berman Concrete, Inc. v. Sey Construction Corp.…
-
Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md. v. DELTA Painting Corp., 529 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…is aimed at protecting laborers and materialmen and also that the rule of strict compliance is tempered by equity. George J. Motz Construction Corp. v. Coral Pines, Inc., 232 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Centex-Winston Corp. v. Crown Paint, Inc., 294 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1969); Art Berman Concrete, Inc. v. Sey Construction Corp., 247 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Mid-State Contractors, Inc. v. Halo Development Corporation, 342 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…
-
Stock Bldg. Supply OF Fla., Inc. v. Soares da Costa Constr. Servs., LLC, 76 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…So. 2d 623 (Fla.1995); WMS Const., Inc. v. Palm Springs Mile Assocs., Ltd., 762 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Florida Wood Services, Inc. v. Osprey Joint Venture, 720 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Centex-Winston Corporation v. Crown Paint, Inc., 294 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).…
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
- Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1969)
- ART Berman Concrete, Inc. v. SEY Constr. Corp., 247 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- George J. Motz Constr. Corp. v. Coral Pines, Inc., 232 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Aurelio Martinez v. State, 270 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Yell-For-Pennell, Inc. v. Joab, Inc., 243 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)