Bared & Co. v. Landis & Gyr Powers, Inc.

650 So. 2d 633, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 442, 1995 WL 25687
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 25, 1995
DocketNo. 94-2408
StatusPublished

This text of 650 So. 2d 633 (Bared & Co. v. Landis & Gyr Powers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bared & Co. v. Landis & Gyr Powers, Inc., 650 So. 2d 633, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 442, 1995 WL 25687 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

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

Related

Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings
645 So. 2d 490 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
City of Orlando v. Desjardins
493 So. 2d 1027 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
NASSAU SQUARE ASSOC., LTD. v. Insurance Com'r of State of California
579 So. 2d 259 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Haven Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kirian
579 So. 2d 730 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
City of Lakeland v. Catinella
129 So. 2d 133 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1961)
Steen v. Ross, Keen & Co.
22 Fla. 480 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1886)
County of Escambia v. Blount Construction Co.
62 So. 650 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
650 So. 2d 633, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 442, 1995 WL 25687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bared-co-v-landis-gyr-powers-inc-fladistctapp-1995.