CROSS STATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, CAMPBELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LAKE MARGARET ESTATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
INDEPCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Cross State Development and related entities appealed a mechanic's lien foreclosure judgment, arguing that the lien claimant's filing was untimely under Florida law. The court reversed, holding that the lien was filed more than 90 days after the final furnishing of labor or services, making it statutorily barred.
The lien claim was not timely filed because the final furnishing of labor or services occurred on November 4 or 9, 1972, and the lien filed on February 9, 1973, exceeded the 90-day statutory deadline. Merely storing equipment at the job site after work concluded does not constitute a continued furnishing of labor or services.
[1] A claim of lien must be filed within 90 days after the final furnishing of labor or services.
[2] The storage of equipment at a job site after the completion of labor or services does not constitute the final furnishing of labor or services for purposes of a mechanic'…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 claim of lien may be recorded at any time during the progress of the work or thereafter but not later than ninety days after the final furnishing of the labor or services or materials”
The statutory requirement at issue that imposes the 90-day deadline for filing mechanic's liens
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Indepco Construction filed a mechanic's lien claim on February 9, 1973, alleging final work on November 11, 1972. During trial, the parties …
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
MILLS, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Appellants, defendants below, appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of appellee, plaintiff below, following a nonju-ry trial in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action.
ISSUE
Whether, under the facts of this case, plaintiff’s claim of lien was filed within 90 days from the date of the final furnishing of labor or services.
STATUTE INVOLVED
Section 713.08(5), Florida Statutes (1971), provides in pertinent part:
“The claim of lien may be recorded at any time during the progress of the work or thereafter but not later than ninety days after the final furnishing of the labor or services or materials by the lien-
FACTS
Plaintiff filed its claim of lien on 9 February 1973. The claim recited that plaintiff last furnished labor or services on the job on 11 November 1972. The initial com plaint alleged that the plaintiff furnished the last of improvements on 7 November. This complaint was dismissed and plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that the last of improvements was furnished on 11 November. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case in chief, the plaintiff was permitted to amend its complaint to show the final day of work to be 4 November. Thereafter, the plaintiff was again permitted to amend its complaint to show the final date of work to be 11 November. The evidence adduced at trial was that the final day of work was 4 November or 9 November. Evidence was adduced that a piece of machinery owned by plaintiff was at the job site on 12 November, although it had not been used on the job.
DECISION
The judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed because the testimony at trial shows that the final furnishing of labor or services occurred on 4 or 9 November; therefore, the claim of lien, which was filed on 9 February, was not filed within the 90-day period of time mandated by Section 713.08(5). Plaintiff’s contention that its claim of lien was timely filed because it left a piece of its road building machinery at the job site until 12 November is without merit. The storage of the piece of machinery at the job site after plaintiff concluded its work on 4 or 9 November is not the furnishing of labor or services within the intendment of Section 713.08(5).
The final judgment in this case is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court for the entry of a final judgment in favor of the defendants.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert M. Swedroe, Architect/Planners, A.I.A., P.A. v. First Am. Inv. Corp., 565 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…letion could not be issued without the UL certification. The certification was therefore a lienable service within the in-tendment of the limitation period. On the other hand, in Cross State Development Company v. Indepco Construction Company, Inc., 346 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), this court held that storage of a piece of machinery at the job site does not constitute the furnishing of services or labor within the intendment of section 713.-05. Application of the pertinent statutory provisions and govern…