EDWARD J. CONNOR, APPELLANT,
v.
THELMA DREYER AND FREDERICK DREYER, JR., 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.
Connor, a general contractor, appealed the dismissal of his mechanic's lien foreclosure action. The trial court dismissed for failure to file a contractor's affidavit five days before suit, but the appellate court reversed, holding that such an affidavit is required only for final payment claims or when the owner requests one for non-final payments.
The affidavit requirement applies only to final payments under a direct contract or when the owner requests one for non-final payments. Since Connor's suit was not for a final payment and the appellees did not allege or show they requested an affidavit for the non-final payment, dismissal was improper.
[1] A contractor's affidavit is a prerequisite to the institution of any suit to enforce a mechanic's lien only when the suit seeks to recover the final payment due under a d…
[2] If a suit to enforce a mechanic's lien is not for the final payment, a contractor's affidavit is required only if the owner requests it.
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 contractor shall execute said affidavit and deliver it to the owner at least five days before instituting suit as a prerequisite to the institution of any suit to enforce his lien under this chapter.”
Establishes the five-day affidavit requirement applies specifically to final payment claims under the statute
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConnor contracted with the Dreyers to construct a residence beginning August 25, 1972. Work continued until November 3, 1972, when the Dreyers termina…
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 Mechanic'S Lien Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant Connor appeals from an order granting appellees’ motion to dismiss his action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.
Appellant, a general contractor, contracted with appellees for the construction of a residence. The work was commenced on August 25, 1972 and performed until November 3, 1972 when appellees terminated the contract and ordered appellant to cease and desist from further performance of the work. At that point, the job was about 85% completed; and apparently a dispute had arisen concerning the manner in which appellant was performing the contract.
Appellant perfected a claim of lien, claiming approximately $19,350 due under the contract, and this action ensued. Ap-pellees filed a motion to dismiss because of appellant’s failure to file a contractor’s affidavit five days prior to institution of the suit as required by § 713.06(3)(d)(l), F.S. 1973. Thereafter, appellant demanded arbitration as provided for in the contract, and the action was held in abeyance pending the arbitration. An arbitration award was ultimately entered in favor of appellant in the sum of approximately $10,500, and he returned to the court seeking to foreclose his lien to the extent of the award. At that point, after hearing arguments, the court entered the order appealed from dismissing the action “for failure of the plaintiff to allege the service of the affidavit of the contractor upon the defendant-owners five days prior to the institution of the action, which is a prerequisite to plaintiff’s institution of its [sic] suit to enforce a lien pursuant to Florida Statutes § 713.06(3)(d)l.”
Section 713.06(3), F.S.1973, provides in material part as follows:
“(c) When any payment becomes due to the contractor on the direct contract, except the final payment:
1. . The owner may require (and in such event, the contractor shall furnish as a prerequisite to requiring payment to himself) an affidavit as prescribed in paragraph (d)l. of this subsection, on any payment made or to be made on a direct contract; .
** (d) When the final payment under a direct contract becomes due the contractor: 1. The contractor shall give to the owner an affidavit stating, if that be the fact, that all lienors have been paid in full or, if the fact be otherwise, showing the name of each lienor who has not been paid in full and the amount due or to become due each for labor, services or materials furnished. The contractor shall have no lien or right of action against the owner for labor, services or materials furnished under the direct contract while in default by reason of not giving the owner such affidavit. The contractor shall execute said affidavit and deliver it to the owner at least five days before instituting suit as a prerequisite to the institution of any suit to enforce his lien under this chapter.” (Italics supplied.)
Appellant contends that an affidavit is required as a condition precedent to suit only, as provided for in the quoted subsection (d)(1), when payment is sought for the final payment due under a direct contract. With respect to any payment due before the final payment, he argues that such an affidavit is required only when requested by the owner as is contemplated by subsection (c)(1), supra. It appearing that this suit was not instituted to recover a final payment; therefore, and the appellees not having yet alleged or shown that they requested such an affidavit with respect to a nonfinal payment, appellant insists it was error to dismiss his complaint. He’s correct.1
In view whereof, the order appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. . Cf. Renuart Lumber Yard v. Stearn (Fla.1957), 95 So. 2d 517.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 371 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…owner or no notice at all be allowed to participate in progress payments before the prime contractor is to be paid. Of course, the use of an affidavit of the contractor for progress payments is strictly optional for the owner. See Connor v. Dreyer, 335 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The instant record is bare of any reference to the use of a progress payment affidavit. Thus, in the absence of such affidavit, Hughes would have no right to participate in progress payments because of its failure to give timely…
-
Eisaman v. Iomelli, 368 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…suit seeking final payment of the contract price. Appellant argues, and we agree, that an affidavit is not required by Section 713.06(3)(d)(l) in this case because the $500 he sought was not a final payment under the contract. See Connor v. Dreyer, 335 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED. GRIMES, C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.…
-
Alan L. Ulch, Inc. v. Pitts, 376 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. We reverse this matter on the authority of Eisaman v. Tomelli, 368 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) and Connor v. Dreyer, 335 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), and remand the cause for further proceedings. GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Renuart Lumber Yards, Inc. v. Stearn, 95 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1957)