WILLIAM JOHN MASON, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL ANTONACCI ET AL., 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.
William Mason appeals the dismissal of his cross-claim for an equitable lien on real property being foreclosed. The court holds that while Mason cannot establish an equitable lien on the property itself (as the legal services were not performed with respect to the property), he retains a claim against any sale proceeds attributable to Collins' ownership interest based on Collins' written acknowledgment of debt.
Mason is not entitled to an equitable or charging lien on the property itself because the cross-claim fails to allege that the legal services were performed with respect to the subject property. However, based on Collins' letter acknowledging the debt, Mason retains a claim to his legal services fees from any proceeds due to Collins' one-half ownership interest when the property is sold.
[1] A party seeking an equitable or charging lien upon real property must allege that the legal services for which the lien is sought were performed with respect to that spec…
[2] A recorded letter acknowledging a debt and promising payment upon the sale of specific property may establish a claim to a portion of the sale proceeds.
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 cross-claim fails to contain any allegation to the effect that the legal services were performed with respect to the subject property and, therefore, Mason is not entitled to an equitable or charging lien upon the property.”
Establishes the requirement that legal services must be shown to relate to the subject property for an equitable lien to attach.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1968, William Collins inherited a one-half interest in real property and became indebted to William Mason for legal services. Collins wrote Mason a…
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 Sales Tax cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, William Mason, appeals an order dismissing his first amended cross-claim for an equitable lien against certain realty which is being foreclosed.
In 1968, as a result of his wife’s death, William I. Collins (not a party to this appeal) became the owner of a one-half undivided interest in the real property involved in this litigation. Collins being indebted to the appellant, William Mason, for legal services rendered, on September 19, 1968 wrote a letter acknowledging that he owes Mason $6,770, which sum is a lien upon his interest in the subject property, and promising to pay Mason when the property is sold. Mason had the letter recorded. Subsequently, in 1975 the Internal Revenue Service levied on Collins’ one-half interest to pay for delinquent taxes. Paul Antonacci, appellee, purchased this one-half interest at a tax sale and received a deed of real estate from the IRS. Thereafter, Community Federal Savings & Loan Association filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage on the property and named as defendants, inter alia, William Collins, William Mason and Paul Antonacci. Mason then filed an answer and an amended cross-claim to foreclose his lien and alleged that his was superior to any interest of Antonacci. Antonac-ci filed a motion to dismiss the cross-claim for failure to state sufficient facts to entitle Mason to any type of lien on the property. After a hearing, the trial judge entered the appealed order dismissing with prejudice Mason's cross-claim.
The cross-claim fails to contain any allegation to the effect that the legal services were performed with respect to the subject property and, therefore, Mason is not entitled to an equitable or charging lien upon the property. See, e. g., Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 So. 721 (1934); Billingham v. Thiele, 107 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958), aff’d, 109 So. 2d 763 (Fla.1959).
Nevertheless, as a result of the September 19,1968 letter, Mason has a claim to the extent of the amount of his legal services on one-half the sale proceeds to which the Collins’ ownership interest in the property may be entitled. See Guthrie v. Home Building & Loan Co., 116 Fla. 822, 156 So. 882 (1934). At this stage of the litigation it is not known whether there will be any proceeds due the Collins’ interest and, therefore, it is premature to eliminate Mason’s claim with respect thereto. We, therefore, reinstate Mason’s cross-claim with regards to the proceeds, if any, which may be due the Collins' one-half ownership interest pending the outcome of this foreclosure action.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amacher v. Keel, 358 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…theless, the case must have been disposed of below upon the theory of an equitable lien upon the real property because in its order of dismissal the trial court found that appellants were not entitled to an equitable lien, citing Mason v. Antonacci, 342 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Upon examination of Mason, we find language therein which supports the court’s ruling. However, we do not believe that Mason correctly states the law of Florida as our supreme court has expressed it. In Margarum v. J. S. Christi…
Authorities Cited
- Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637 (Fla. 1933)
- Ira E. Billingham v. Ellsworth W. Thiele, 109 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1959)
- Ronald v. State ex rel. John S. Harris, 113 Fla. 859 (Fla. 1934)
- Ira E. Billingham v. Ellsworth W. Thiele, 107 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Guthrie v. Home Bldg. & Loan Co., 116 Fla. 822 (Fla. 1934)