SORENSEN/FLETCHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILLIP GRASSO AND BARBARA GRASSO, 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.
Sorensen/Fletcher Construction Company sought damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on work allegedly performed on the Grassos' property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Grassos based on res judicata, relying on a prior mechanic's lien foreclosure suit that had been dismissed. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the prior dismissal was not a determination on the merits and therefore could not support a res judicata defense.
The prior lien foreclosure suit's dismissal was not a determination on the merits of the monetary claims and therefore could not support the res judicata defense. The summary judgment in favor of the Grassos was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
[1] A dismissal of a mechanic's lien foreclosure action for failure to provide a required contractor's affidavit is not a determination on the merits of the plaintiff's monet…
[2] A prior judgment dismissing a mechanic's lien foreclosure action with prejudice due to a procedural defect does not preclude a subsequent lawsuit for monetary damages bas…
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 order of dismissal in the mechanic's lien foreclosure suit was not a determination on the merits of the plaintiff's monetary claims against the defendants, although it did determine with finality that the plaintiff was not entitled to a lien against the defendants' property.”
Establishes the critical distinction that dismissal on procedural grounds does not constitute a determination on the merits for res judicata purposes.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSorensen/Fletcher Construction Company first filed suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien on property owned by Phillip and Barbara Grasso. That suit was …
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 Merits Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Judge.
Appellant suffered final summary judgment in its suit for damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, the trial court finding that a prior action between the same parties was res judicata. We reverse.
In a prior action between the same parties, appellant had sought to foreclose its claim for a mechanic’s lien on appellees’ property. Upon trial of the foreclosure suit, the plaintiff’s evidence established that it had failed to furnish to defendant-owners the contractor’s affidavit required under Fla.Stat. § 713.06(3) (d) (1) (1971), as a consequence of which the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff’s motion for rehearing and motion for leave to amend the pleadings to state a cause of action at law were unavailing.
Thereafter, plaintifff filed the instant case seeking damages on the theories of breach of contract and unjust enrichment, but based upon the same alleged improvements to defendants’ property that had been the basis of the unsuccessful suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. Upon proof of this fact the court held that the defendants’ affirmative defense of res judicata was shown as a matter of law and entered summary judgment in their favor. The order of dismissal in the mechanic’s lien foreclosure suit was not a determination on the merits of the plaintiff’s monetary claims against the defendants, although it did determine with finality that the plaintiff was not entitled to a lien against the defendants’ property. Oper v. Russell, Inc., 197 So. 2d 13 (3rd DCA Fla.1967); Halifax Construction Company v. Chastain Groves, Inc., 192 So. 2d 15 (1st DCA Fla.1966); Stilley v. Post, 148 So. 2d 569 (1st DCA Fla.1963). Consequently, the lien foreclosure suit, having been dismissed without a determination on the merits of the monetary claims asserted in the instant suit, would not support appellees’ affirmative defense of res judicata. Accord, Kent v. Sutker, 40 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1949).
The summary judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN, C. J., and YAWN, THERON, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cap. Bank v. Needle, 596 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…effect to the legislative intention as thus shown, even [*1138] though it infringes to some extent upon the doctrine of res judicata. Cragin, 133 So. at 573 (emphasis supplied). Capital Bank also claims that Sorensen/Fletcher Const. Co. v. Grasso, 319 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 324 So. 2d 90 (Fla.1975), is analogous to the instant case. In that case, the plaintiff sought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. Because the plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory lien law requirements, his comp…
-
Bashlor v. Louie L. Wainwright, 369 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…he merits is not a basis for barring later consideration of the merits. Kent v. Sutker, 40 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1949); Cabinet Craft, Inc. v. A. G. Spanos Enterprises, Inc., 348 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Sorensen/Fletcher Construction Co. v. Grasso, 319 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. dismissed, 324 So. 2d 90 (Fla.1975). The language of the Supreme Court’s 1966 decision on Bashlor’s claim, the separate opinions of the concurring justices, and the subsequent decisions of the Court all indicate that the…
-
McMAHAN Constr. Co., Inc. v. Carol's Care Ctr., Inc., 460 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Herman v. Bob Woschnik Construction, Inc., 336 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); see Oppenheim v. Newport Systems Development Corporation, 348 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Sorenson/Fletcher Construction Co. v. Grosso, 319 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 324 So. 2d 90 (Fla.1975). . McMahan also alleged that no final affidavit was required of it because it had furnished owner with a payment bond pursuant to section 713.02(6), Florida Statutes (1983). See Walter Harve…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kent v. Sutker, 40 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1949)
- Oper v. Russell, Inc., 197 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Sydney H. Stilley t/a Sydney H. Stilley & Assocs. v. Post, 148 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Halifax Constr. Co. v. Chastain Groves, Inc., 192 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)