BEAM ET AL.
v.
JEROME LUMBER & SUPPLY CO., INC.
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lien foreclosure judgment, holding that a materialman who failed to provide timely notice of lien claim could only recover the amount remaining due on the construction contract at the time notice was served, not the full amount of materials supplied.
The court reversed, holding that appellee can claim a lien against the owners' property for no amount larger than the sum remaining due on the contract at the time service of notice was made. Since only $40.15 remained due when notice was served, the lien claim is limited to that amount.
“Beam had a contract with the contractor for a specified sum, he was not in privity with the material man (appellee), he paid the contractor as per terms of the contract, and had no notice of intention to claim a lien as provided by Chapter 84, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., until after the buildings were completed and all moneys due to the contractor except $40.15 had been paid.”
Establishes the factual basis for limiting the materialman's lien to the remaining contract balance
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ. L. Beam owned a lot in Lee County and contracted with A. M. Henderson & Sons to construct three houses for $19,500. Jerome Lumber & Supply Company …
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 Materialman'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice.
J. L. Beam, the owner of a certain lot in Lee County, made a contract with A. M. Henderson & Sons to construct three houses thereon for a total consideration of $19,500.00. Appellee (Jerome Lumber & Supply Company, Inc.) furnished material for construction of said houses and says there was due it in November 1951, the last month in which material was furnished, the sum of $777.14. Appellee also alleged that ’on January 22, 1952 it served a cautionary notice on Beam of its intention to claim a lien against appellants. It also filed claim of lien and Bill of Complaint in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lee County February 6, 1952 and prayed foreclosure thereof against the lands of appellants for the amount of its claim.
Appellants answered the complaint, admitting the contract with the Hendersons, alleging that only $40.15 remained due thereon, but denied that there was unpaid thereon the sum of $777.14. Other allegations of the bill were denied. Testimony was taken and on final hearing the Chancellor entered a final decree for appellee in the sum of $777.14 with interest and costs and ordered sale of the property within 30 days to satisfy the lien. This appeal is .from the final decree.
We think the judgment should be reversed on authority of Foley Lumber Co. v. Koester, Fla., 61 So. 2d 634, 635. Beam had a contract with the contractor for a specified sum, he was not in privity with the material man (appellee), he paid the contractor as per terms of the contract, and had no notice of intention to claim a lien as provided by Chapter 84, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., until after the buildings were completed and all moneys due to the contractor except $40.15 had been paid. It appears the contractor is unable to furnish the .sworn affidavit required by Section 84.04(3) F.S.A., but appellee failed to establish that “final payment”, under the terms of the contract, was more than the $40.15 remaining due. While the contract is not in evidence, there is no showing of improper payments on it. Compare: Curtis v. McCardel, Fla., 63 So. 2d 60; Shaw v. Del-Mar Cabinet Co., Fla., 63 So. 2d 264. Under such circumstances appellee can claim a lien against the owners’ property for no amount larger than the sum remaining due on the contract at the time the service of notice was made.
It is not amiss to point out that the contract was executed and completed pri-or to Section 84.05(11) F.S., as amended 1953, F.S.A., requiring the owner to withhold twenty per cent of the contract price under the conditions stated, said amendment being in no .way involved in this case.
Reversed.
THOMAS and DREW, JJ., and HER-IN, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Carol Fla. Corp., 122 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…withhold 20% of the contract price to secure payment of laborers, subcontractors and materialmen. It has been determined that this section is not applicable to contracts executed prior to its enactment. Beam v. Jerome Lumber & Supply Co., Fla. 1954, 74 So. 2d 537. The controlling question upon the claim of Westinghouse Electric Corporation is whether or not there was a binding contract prior to June 3, 1957. The most that can be said for the evidence upon this point, is that it reveals that the letter was d…
-
Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co v. 1800 N. Fed. Corp., 29 Fla. Supp. 136 (Broward Cty. Cir. Ct. 1967)…o., 52 Fla. 595, 42 So. 206. The language of the terms and provisions of the statute discussed in part above, the general object intended to be accomplished, and the prior history of the legislation (compare Beam v. Jerome Lumber & Supply Co., Fla., 74 So. 2d 537; Bensam Corp. v. Felton, 63 So. 2d 278) impel the conclusion that the provision is directory. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be and the same is hereby denied.…
Authorities Cited
- Foley Lumber Co. v. Koester, 61 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1952)
- Shaw et ux. v. Del-Mar Cabinet Co., Inc., 63 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1953)
- Curtis et ux. v. McCARDEL, 63 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1953)