MINNIE HOFFSES AREY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY E. WILLIAMS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's decree quieting title to land in the plaintiff but reversed the portion awarding the defendant a lien for improvements made to the property, holding that compensation for improvements must be measured by the enhancement in property value minus reasonable rental value, not by actual costs and deducted net rents collected.
Compensation for improvements to another's land is measured by the amount to which the improvements enhanced the value of the owner's estate, less the reasonable rental value of the land for the period in question. The trial court erred by deducting one-half of actual net rents collected rather than reasonable rental value, and by failing to clearly establish whether it relied on improvement value or cost as the basis for computation.
“The compensation to one making improvements to land of another under the circumstances presented here is measured by the amount to which the improvements have enhanced the value of the owner's estate, less the reasonable rental value of the land for the period in question.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for calculating compensation for improvements to another's property
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff owned land that had been improved by the defendant (who claimed color of title through a widow's deed) and the defendant's son. The defe…
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 Equitable Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Chief Justice.
The trial court entered a decree quieting title to land in plaintiff below (appellant here) but required her to pay the defendant (appellee here) $3,108.63 for improvements to the land. The decree made such sum a lien on the property. Plaintiff appealed from that portion of the decree adjudging a lien on the property and defendant appealed from that portion of the decree quieting title in plaintiff.
That portion of the decree quieting title to the subject premises in the plaintiff is affirmed. We must, however, reverse that part of the decree which deals with the allowance for improvements. Relevant portions of the decree in that connection read as follows:
“That all of said installations, repairs, and-renovations made by defendant and by her said son constituted valuable improvements to said property and that the cost thereof, as testified by defendant’s witness, a T&mpa con- ' tractor, was $2,848.00, to which cost should be added a reasonable allowance on account of the usual contractor’s commission, social security taxes'' and liability insurance.
“3. That the value of said property is $7500.00, and -the improvements on said land are of the -value of $4,000.00; and that since the death of said widow, Ina Hoffses, the defendant has been in continuous possession-thereof,’ claiming under said widow’s deed as color of title, and occupying the premises herself during various periods from time to time, and having her said son in possession as aforesaid, and at other times having tenants in possession thereof.
“That the fair rental value of said property was $35.00 per month before, and $50.00 per month after said im-provéments were finished by defendant’s son in October, 1952; however the defendant has only collected from, tenants net rents in the sum of $282.75.
“That for all said maintenance and improvement expenditures made by de: fendant and by her said son for the benefit of said property the defendant is hereby decreed to have an equitable lien agains't said property in the sum of $3,250.00/ less the sum of $141.37, being one-half of said net rents collected, thus making a total lien in the sum of $3,108.63.” (Italics supplied.)
The compensation to one making improvements to land of another under the circumstances presented here is measured by the amount to which the improvements have enhanced the value of the owner’s estate, less the reasonable rental value of the land for the period in question. Glinski v. Zawadski, 8 Fla. 405; Kester v. Bostwick, 153 Fla. 437, 15 So. 2d 201; see Note, 1952, 24 A.L.R.2d 11, 31.
In the decree the court refers to the value of the improvements which was the correct basis for computation but also refers to the cost thereof. From the language used we are unable to determine which of these figures the Court used as a basis for computing the allowance for improvements. But in any event it is clear that from the allowance for improvements there was deducted one-half the amount, of net rents collected whereas there should have been deduction based upon reasonable rental value. Therefore, that portion of the decree pertaining to sums due the defendant from the plaintiff is .reversed for the entry of final decree by the lower court in the light of the views here expressed.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., and McNEILL, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miceli v. Gilmac Developers, Inc., 467 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…nt because the building constructed by defendants on the plaintiffs’ property enhanced the value of that property; however, the trial court incorrectly calculated the award. An award of betterment is to be calculated as set out in Arey v. Williams, 81 So. 2d 525 (Fla.1955): The compensation to one making improvements to land of another under the circumstances presented here is measured by the amount to which the improvements have enhanced the value of the owner’s estate, less the reasonable rental value of…
-
Levine v. Fieni McFARLANE, Inc., 690 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ainst the owners, who knew that the improvements were being made, for unjust enrichment. The owners appeal a judgment entered against them, arguing that the court erred in awarding damages based on plaintiffs costs. We affirm. In Arey v. Williams, 81 So. 2d 525 (Fla.1955), the defendant and her son, who thought they owned a parcel of land, made improvements, but subsequently lost a quiet title action. The trial court held that they should be reimbursed for the improvements, but used language in the judgmen…
-
14TH & Heinberg, LLC v. Terhaar & Cronley Gen. Contractors, Inc., 43 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…y executed. The party who made the improvements was not paid and filed an unjust enrichment action against the land owner, and the trial court awarded damages based on the costs of the improvements. Id. The Levine court, relying on Arey v. Williams, 81 So. 2d 525 (Fla.1955), held that when improvements have been made to real property, the measure of damages in an unjust enrichment case is the enhanced value of the property from the perspective of the owner, and not the cost of the improvements. Id. The tria…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elbert v. Poppell & Freddie Davis V. the State of Fla., 153 Fla. 437 (Fla. 1943)
- Kester v. Nellie L. Cowan Bostwick (formerly Nellie L. Cowan) a widow, 153 Fla. 437 (Fla. 1943)
- Stanlius Glinski and William H. Gilliland v. John Zawadski and Wife, 8 Fla. 405 (Fla. 1859)