WILLIAM BOOTH, APPELLANT,
v.
JOE LOMBARDI, 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.
William Booth, a subcontractor who supplied lime-rock, appealed a trial court judgment denying his mechanics' lien claim against the owner Lombardi. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that Booth failed to comply with the statutory requirement to serve notice on the owner before perfecting his lien, regardless of whether privity with the owner existed.
A subcontractor must comply with § 713.06(2) by serving notice on the owner as a prerequisite to perfecting a mechanics' lien claim. Booth's failure to comply with this statutory requirement meant he was not entitled to relief against the owner Lombardi, even though the trial court found substantial compliance with § 713.08. The court did not need to resolve the privity question because the notice requirement was dispositive.
[1] An interlocutory order that does not determine all issues raised by a party against another party remains pending in the trial court.
[2] A subcontractor must serve notice on the owner as a prerequisite to perfecting a lien under Chapter 713 of the Florida Statutes, unless the subcontractor is a laborer.
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“All lienors under this section, except laborers, as a prerequisite to perfecting a lien under this chapter and recording a claim of lien, shall be required to serve a notice on the owner . . . .”
The statutory language from § 713.06(2) that establishes the mandatory notice requirement for subcontractors seeking to perfect a mechanics' lien.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBooth was a subcontractor under Green, the prime contractor, to furnish lime-rock for a roadbed. Booth brought an action to enforce a claim of lien ag…
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
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals a “final judgment” denying his claim of lien under Chapter 713 of the Florida Statutes. Appellant, a subcontractor under appellee Green, the prime contractor to furnish lime-rock for a roadbed, brought this action to enforce the claim of lien against appellees Lombardi and for a money judgment against appellee Green. The “final judgment” appealed is in fact an interlocutory order in a suit formerly cognizable in equity and, therefore, we treat this cause as an interlocutory appeal. The interlocutory judgment appealed does not determine the issues raised by appellant against appellee Green and, therefore, such issues are still in the bosom of the trial court. The trial court held that appellant substantially complied with § 713.08, F.S. but that he was not in privity with the owner and that he had failed to comply with § 713.06(2) of the Mechanics’ Lien Law. The lower court heard the evidence of the parties on the issue or privity and resolved the conflicts therein in favor of the appellees Lombardi. We have carefully reviewed the evidence and can find no legal reason for overruling the chancellor’s conclusion that no such privity existed.
Appellant contends that under § 713.04 of the Mechanics’ Lien Law, in order to perfect his claim of lien he does not have to be in privity with the owner or give notice to the owner under § 713.06(2). We cannot agree with appellant that he was not required to give notice to the owner under § 713.06(2). Said section provides :
“All lienors under this section, except laborers, as a prerequisite to perfecting a lien under this chapter and recording a claim of lien, shall be required to serve a notice on the owner . . . .” [emphasis supplied]
The appellant, not having complied with § 713.06(2), was not entitled to any relief against the appellees Lobardi and, therefore, the judgment denying such relief is affirmed. Appellant’s claim for damages against appellee Green not having been determined by the judgment appealed, is still pending in the trial court.
Affirmed.
SCHEB, J., concurs.
BOARDMAN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Davis Water & Waste Indus., Inc., 358 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…(see subpar-agraph 4 thereof). This exclusion appears to dove tail without our thinking as to the legislative purpose in the case now before us. By this holding, we recognize that we are in direct conflict with the case of Booth v. Lombardi, Inc., 309 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). We also recognize that this question is one which will continue to arise among the plethora of cases on mechanics liens, now reaching the appellate level, as a result of the building down-turn of two years ago. Accordingly, we ce…
-
Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Davis Water & Waste Indus., Inc., 377 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1979)…as a defendant until two and one-half years after the recording of the claim of lien and more than two years after the transfer of the lien to bond. The district court’s decision on the notice issue is in conflict with Booth v. Joe Lombardi, Inc., 309 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), and has been followed in Baumgartner Construction Co. v. Harrell, 364 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The court certified that its decision on the notice issue passed on a question of great public interest, and framed the questio…
-
Baumgartner Constr. Co., Inc. v. Harrell, 364 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…BOYER, Judge, dissenting. I am of the view that the applicable statutes were properly construed by our sister court of the Second District in Booth v. Lombardi, Inc., 309 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1975), rejected by the majority here. I would hold in conformity with that opinion and reverse.…1 / 2