RICE WINDOW MFG. CO.
v.
EVANS ET AL.
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.
Rice Window Manufacturing appealed an order sustaining exceptions to a Special Master's report regarding its claim for labor and materials on a Dade County hotel improvement. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Schwartzes, who had represented themselves as owners to obtain a bond releasing the property from the lien, were estopped from denying their ownership status for purposes of enforcing the lien against the substitute bond.
The court held that the Schwartzes were estopped from denying their ownership status. They could not deny ownership for the purpose of enforcing the lien against the bond substituted in lieu of the property interest, because they represented themselves as owners to obtain release of the lien through the bond.
“the Schwartzes were lessees of the property, had assumed the duty of making the repairs, and were in possession of the property when contract to repair was made”
Establishes the factual basis for the Schwartzes' possession and liability for repair obligations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRice Window Manufacturing repaired and improved the Patrician Hotel at the request of S. E. Schwartz and Ruth Schwartz, who were lessees in possession…
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.
MATPIEWS, Justice.
.This.is an appeal from an order sustaining exceptions to the report of-the Special Master with reference to a claim for labor and materials which constituted the final decree. -
It appears that the -Patrician Hotel, located upon certain real estate in Dade County, was repaired and improved by the appellant at the request of S. E. Schwartz and Ruth Schwartz, his wife. Abe Kurman and Nettie Kurman, his wife, were co-owners of the property with Anne Evans Capps. The case was dismissed as to-all of them. During the proceedings a.claim for lien on the property was released when the Schwartzes filed a bond, as. principal, with the All Florida Surety Company, as surety, in lieu of the lien and an order of the Court was entered transferring the lien' to the bond. An amended 'bill -of complaint was then filed whereby the Schwartzes and the All Florida Surety Company were joined as parties-defendants.
The Master found from the evidence that the contract with the appellant, was made by Mr. and Mrs. Schwartz; that the Schwartzes were lessees of the property, had assumed the duty of making the repairs, and were in possession of the property when contract to repair was, made ; that the bond was given by Schwartz and wife as principals; that F.S. Section 84.24, F.S.A., provides .for the giving of such bond by the owner and that when Schwartz and wife gave such bond, with the approval of the Court, they represented themselves to be the owners and could not have given the bond except by claiming to be owners of the property.
It is certainly borne out by this record that Schwartz and wife held themselves out as b'eipg the-owners of the property. It was under such ‘representation that a bond was given to release the property from the claim of lien, and they are now estopped from denying that they are owners for the purpose in question and for the enforcement of the lien against the bond which was substituted-in lieu of any interest in the property. :It is likewise clear that there was a misapplication ,of the law -to the facts in sustaining, the. exceptions to the Master’s Report. It is ordered that the order sustaining thé exceptions to the Master’s Report be -set aside and that a proper order-and final decree be entered in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mielke v. Clermont Builder's Supply, Inc., 113 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Rice Window Mfg. Co. v. Evans, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 164. ALLEN, C. J., and KANNER and SHANNON, JJ., concur.…
-
Doyle v. Tutan, 110 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…, 96 So. 2d 257; Hollingsworth v. Handcock, 7 Fla. 338; Hagan v. Ellis, 39 Fla. 463, 22 So. 727; Blackburn v. Venice Inlet Co., Fla.1948, 38 So. 2d 43, 46-47; Cowgill v. Hopkins, Fla.1951, 52 So. 2d 343, 344; Rice Window Mfg. Co. v. Evans, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 164; Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Claughton, Fla.1956, 86 So. 2d 775, 790-792; Peeler v. Hutson, 202 Miss. 837, 32 So. 2d 785. We reverse the order of dismissal, and remand the cause for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. HORTON…
-
Lewison v. Gabros Constr. Corp., 371 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…llant on appeal, we are of the opinion that appellant has failed to show any reversible error; therefore, based upon the following cases and the general rules of appeals, the judgment appealed is affirmed. See Rice Window Manufacturing Co. v. Evans, 71 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1954); Phillips v. Sanchez, 35 Fla. 187, 17 So. 363 (1895); Pilafin v. Cherry, 355 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Damiano v. Weinstein, 355 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); McGuire v. Consolidated Electrical Supply, Inc., 329 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th…