EARL T. SHANNON, ETC. v. H & R HYDRO-PULL, INC., d/b/a H & R POWER SYSTEMS, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

EARL T. SHANNON, ETC. v. H & R HYDRO-PULL, INC., d/b/a H & R POWER SYSTEMS, etc.

230 So. 3d 1251

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 25, 2017

Docket4D16-1781; 4D16-1782

StatusPublished

This text of 230 So. 3d 1251 (EARL T. SHANNON, ETC. v. H & R HYDRO-PULL, INC., d/b/a H & R POWER SYSTEMS, etc.) 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

EARL T. SHANNON, ETC. v. H & R HYDRO-PULL, INC., d/b/a H & R POWER SYSTEMS, etc., 230 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with appellant Earl Shannon that the final judgment is ambiguous in that it appears to create a double recovery from both Earl Shannon, individually and the estate of his mother, Starr T. Shannon. Appellee H <& R Hydro-Pull, Inc. is entitled to recover a total of $17,043.54 in principal jointly from Earl Shannon, individually, and Starr T. Shannon’s estate. H & R cannot recover the same damages twice. We remand that portion of the final judgment to clarify that Earl Shannon, individually and Earl Shannon, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Starr T. Shannon, are jointly liable for $17,043.54.

We reverse the order granting summary final judgment to the defendants on H & R’s lien foreclosure action. The claim of lien was recorded October 1, 2008. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that the lien was not filed .within 90 days of H & R’s final furnishing of labor, services, or materials. See § 713.08(5), Fla. Stat, (2008). The facts on summary judgment are viewed in the light most favorable >to the non-moving party. Viewed under this standard, H & R did not complete performance of the contract until it submitted all documentation required by the Town of Davie in August or September, 2008. Using either date, the lien was timely recorded.

On the issues of prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees against the estate, it does not appear that, apart from ple'ading for these things, H & R filed a motion seeking, those items in the circuit court. Thus it waived its entitlement to these items. See Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Real Estate Depot, Inc., 42 So.3d 258, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (claim for prejudgment interest was waived when raised for the first time on appeal).

We have considered the other' issues raised on appeal‘and find them to be without legal merit.

Affirmed in pari; reversed in part and remanded.

Gross, Ciklin and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We agree with appellant Earl Shannon that the final judgment is ambiguous in that it appears to create a double recovery from both Earl Shannon, individually and the estate of his mother, Starr T. Shannon. Appellee H <& R Hydro-Pull, Inc. is entitled to recover a total of $17,043.54 in principal jointly from Earl Shannon, individually, and Starr T. Shannon’s estate. H & R cannot recover the same damages twice. We remand that portion of the final judgment to clarify that Earl Shannon, individually and Earl Shannon, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Starr T. Shannon, are jointly liable for $17,043.54.

We reverse the order granting summary final judgment to the defendants on H & R’s lien foreclosure action. The claim of lien was recorded October 1, 2008. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that the lien was not filed .within 90 days of H & R’s final furnishing of labor, services, or materials. See § 713.08(5), Fla. Stat, (2008). The facts on summary judgment are viewed in the light most favorable >to the non-moving party. Viewed under this standard, H & R did not complete performance of the contract until it submitted all documentation required by the Town of Davie in August or September, 2008. Using either date, the lien was timely recorded.

On the issues of prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees against the estate, it does not appear that, apart from ple'ading for these things, H & R filed a motion seeking, those items in the circuit court. Thus it waived its entitlement to these items. See Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Real Estate Depot, Inc., 42 So.3d 258, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (claim for prejudgment interest was waived when raised for the first time on appeal).

We have considered the other' issues raised on appeal‘and find them to be without legal merit.

Affirmed in pari; reversed in part and remanded.

Gross, Ciklin and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 So. 3d 1251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earl-t-shannon-etc-v-h-r-hydro-pull-inc-dba-h-r-power-systems-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack