Bared & Co. v. Landis & Gyr Powers, Inc.
Opinion
We agree with the trial court that section 255.071(4), Florida Statutes (1993), which makes the remedies of accounting, injunction, [634]*634and attachment1 available for the enforcement of an existing right of a subcontractor on a government job to recover money already paid for its services from the contractor, is applicable to an action arising from a contract entered into before its effective date. City of Orlando v. Desjardins, 493 So.2d 1027, 1028 (Fla.1986) (remedial statutes should be applied retroactively to serve their intended purposes); City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So.2d 133 (Fla.1961) (remedial statutes only operate in furtherance of remedies or confirmation of rights already existing); Ginsberg v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So.2d 490, 497 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1994) (Florida Statute section 697.07, providing for simplified procedure to enforce existing rights to assignment of rents in foreclosure cases is remedial and thus retroactive); Nassau Square Assocs. v. Insurance Comm’r, 579 So.2d 259, 260-61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (same). See Escambia County v. Blount Constr. Co., 66 Fla. 129, 62 So. 650 (1913) (accounting available as remedy to enforce contract rights); Steen v. Ross, Keen & Co., 22 Fla. 480 (1886) (attachment is remedy); 29 Fla.Jur.2d Injunctions § 10 (1981) (injunction is remedy). We also reject the appellant’s claim that the procedural provisions of the statute are invalidly in conflict with any rule of civil procedure. Compare Haven Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Kirian, 579 So.2d 730, 732-33 (Fla.1991).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
650 So. 2d 633 (Bared & Co. v. Landis & Gyr Powers, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.