C. DALE DYKEMA, APPELLANT,
v.
TRANS STATE INDUSTRIES, 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.
Architect Dykema filed a statutory lien claim against property after not being paid for design services, but failed to file suit within the 60-day period required by Florida law. When he later sought equitable relief, the trial court properly struck his equitable lien claim because an adequate statutory remedy existed and he failed to pursue it timely.
The trial court did not err in striking the prayer for equitable lien. Because an adequate statutory remedy was available and Dykema failed to pursue it within the time prescribed by statute, and no special or peculiar equities existed, equitable relief was not warranted.
[1] A claim of lien filed under Section 713.03(3), Florida Statutes, is automatically extinguished by operation of law if a suit to enforce the lien is not filed within 60 da…
[2] A party who fails to pursue a statutory remedy within the prescribed time limit may not seek an equitable lien when no special or peculiar equities exist.
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 intelligence“The original action was not filed within the prescribed period of time and the claim of lien was extinguished automatically by operation of law.”
Establishes that Dykema's failure to timely file suit resulted in automatic loss of the statutory lien remedy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDykema contracted with Trans State Industries to provide architectural services. After not being paid in full, Dykema filed a claim of lien on Decembe…
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 Of Contest Of Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
C. Dale Dykema, appellant/plaintiff, entered into a written contract with Trans State Industries, Inc., appellee/defendant, in which he undertook to perform architectural professional services in exchange for a fee. The appellant was not paid in full and, on December 7, 1972, as provided by Section 713.03(3), Florida Statutes, filed his claim of lien against the real property for which he had drafted the drawings, plans and specifications. The appellee, as authorized by the provisions of Section 713.22(2), Florida Statutes, duly served upon the appellant notice of contest of lien which limited the time within which appellant had to file suit to enforce the lien to 60 days from the date of the service of said notice. The original action was not filed within the prescribed period of time and the claim of lien was extinguished automatically by operation of law. Section 713.22(2), supra.
In the interim other parties not involved in this cause had obtained and perfected liens against the real property involved here. As a result of these other liens, which would have priority over the judgment lien that appellant might obtain as they were recorded against the said property, on March 6, 1973, subsequent to the recording of these other liens, the appellant filed his original complaint which, inter alia, sought to impose an equitable lien against the property. The count praying for an equitable lien was stricken upon appellee’s motion from the original and second amended complaints. The case then proceeded to trial before the court sitting without a jury on the theories of breach of contract and damages on accounts stated.
Appellant recovered a money judgment on his third amended complaint which he contends is worthless because the appellee is insolvent.
On this appeal appellant urges that the trial court erred in striking the prayer for an equitable lien. We disagree.
In the case sub judice, there was an adequate remedy available to appellant; however, it clearly appears that he did not pursue that remedy within the time prescribed in Section 713.22(2), supra. Neither does the record disclose the existence of special or peculiar equities as there were in Crane Co. v. Fine, Fla. 1969, 221 So. 2d 145. In the light of the statutory and decisional law applicable the trial court did not err in striking appellant’s prayer for equitable lien.
For the foregoing reasons, the final judgment appealed is
Affirmed.
McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charles Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Phillips, 580 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…e of the Notices of Contest of Lien. As the trial court stated in its order on rehearing, the Notice of Contest acts by operation of law to discharge a lien on the sixtieth day, without intervention of the court. Dykema v. Trans State Indus., Inc., 303 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In addition, the mechanic’s lien law is to be strictly construed in every particular; and strict compliance is an indispensable prerequisite for a person seeking affirmative relief. Home Elec. of Dade County, Inc. v. Gonas, 5…
Authorities Cited
- Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1969)