ODOM
v.
BARRETT ET UX.
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.
In this second appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a contractor's lien claim, holding that the contractor failed to prove the amount of materials furnished and work performed under the contract that remained unpaid.
The contractor failed to carry the burden of proving the amount owed, and therefore the trial court properly dismissed the complaint. On appeal, every presumption favors the correctness of the decree appealed from, and the appellant failed to make error clearly appear.
“The burden was on the plaintiff below to prove what materials had been furnished and what work had been done under the contract and that it had not been paid for in the manner provided. This burden must be carried by the plaintiff if he is to recover.”
Establishes the contractual burden of proof on the plaintiff contractor to prove materials furnished and work done
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA contractor brought an action against property owners seeking recovery for materials furnished and work performed under a contract. The trial court i…
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 Contract Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
This is the second appearance of this case here. See Odom v. Barrett, Fla., 56 So. 2d 122, 123.
On rehearing in the above appeal we reversed the cause with directions “to allow or give the respective parties an opportunity to adduce further and additional testimony pertinent to the issues.” Obviously, the reason which prompted us to take this action was because of our conclusion that the Chancellor below was correct in his determination there that it was impossible for him accurately to arrive at a proper amount to be paid the contractor. Additional testimony was taken in the lower court after the mandate in the former appeal went down. The lower court, in disposing of the matter, entered a decree dismissing the cause, with the following observation :
“And after further considering the pleadings herein, all testimony taken pursuant to said Order on Appeal and the argument of counsel for the respective parties, the undersigned Judge of the Circuit Court finds that it is still impossible from the record in the case for the Court to arrive at a proper amount, if any, to be paid the contractor. And so, as it appears that owners have paid the Plaintiff, contractor, the sum of $8461.28, the Court cannot properly find that there is any balance owing by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed.”
The burden was on the plaintiff below to prove what materials had been furnished and what work had been done under the contract and that it had not been paid for in the manner provided. This burden must be carried by the plaintiff if he is to recover. Chapman v. St. Stephens Protestant Episcopal Church, Inc., 151 Fla. 641, 10 So. 2d 324. This rule is particularly applicable in actions to enforce statutory liens. Thompson v. Wyles, 111 Fla. 513, 149 So. 769.
Our examination of both records here (in the first and this appeal) leaves no doubt in our minds that the Chancellor was entirely correct in holding the plaintiff wholly failed to carry this burden.
Moreover, in an appeal to this Court every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the decree appealed from and the rulings of the trial Judge. The burden is on the appellant to make error clearly appear — if, in fact, there is error. Appellant has failed to do this.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith Barney Inc. v. Potter, 725 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…lear. The hoariest principle of appellate review is that every presumption is in favor of the ruling of the trial court. Lott v. City of Orlando, 142 Fla. 338, 196 So. 313 (1939); Bilgore v. Gunn, 150 Fla. 799, 9 So. 2d 184 (1942); Odom v. Barrett, 67 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1953) (every presumption is in favor of order [*1225] appealed and trial judge’s rulings). In the absence of explicitly stated reasoning by the trial judge, an appellate court presumes that all intermediate conclusions in the chain of logic wer…
-
Little v. Louie L. Wainwright, 161 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1964)…ery presumption is in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial court and when the judgment reflects that he imposed the sentence within the authority of the applicable statutes his ruling will not be disturbed. See Odom v. Barrett et ux., 67 So. 2d 200, Fla.1953. It is possible for the trial judge on resentencing to im [*215] pose a greater sentence than he imposed before, State ex rel. Rhoden v. Chapman, 127 Fla, 9, 172 So. 56, providing the total of the term on resentencing plus the prior time s…
-
Global Aero Serv., Inc. v. Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, S.A., 157 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…f law that every judgment, order or decree of a trial court brought up for review is clothed with a presumption of correctness and that the burden is upon the appellant in all such proceedings to make error clearly appear. Odom v. Barrett, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 200. We have carefully reviewed all the evidence in the light of appellant’s assignments of error and point on appeal. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed should be and' hereby is affirmed. Affirmed.…
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
- State ex rel. John P. Nelson v. Dayton, 111 Fla. 202 (Fla. 1933)
- Reual W. Thompson v. Wyles, 111 Fla. 513 (Fla. 1933)
- Chapman v. ST. Stephens Protestant Episcopal Church, Inc., 151 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1942)