Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Lowry Electric Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Lowry Electric Co.

269 So. 2d 738

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 28, 1972

DocketNo. 72-331

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 269 So. 2d 738 (Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Lowry Electric Co.) 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

Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Lowry Electric Co., 269 So. 2d 738 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is by the defendant below from an adverse judgment in a mechanics’ lien foreclosure action.

The appellant seeks reversal upon the contention that the plaintiff lienor was barred from recovery because of its failure to furnish an affidavit stating that all lienors had been paid in full, etc., as required of a contractor under § 713.06(3) (d) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We hold the contention is without merit. That defense was not pleaded. It is sufficiently revealed on the record the capacity of the plaintiff was that of a subcontractor, for certain electrical work. As a subcontractor, the plaintiff was not required to furnish such an affidavit. Moreover, although it appears that the plaintiff subcontractor had agreed it would furnish such an affidavit upon five days’ demand by the owner (lessee in possession), it was not alleged or shown that the demand was made.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is by the defendant below from an adverse judgment in a mechanics’ lien foreclosure action.

The appellant seeks reversal upon the contention that the plaintiff lienor was barred from recovery because of its failure to furnish an affidavit stating that all lienors had been paid in full, etc., as required of a contractor under § 713.06(3) (d) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We hold the contention is without merit. That defense was not pleaded. It is sufficiently revealed on the record the capacity of the plaintiff was that of a subcontractor, for certain electrical work. As a subcontractor, the plaintiff was not required to furnish such an affidavit. Moreover, although it appears that the plaintiff subcontractor had agreed it would furnish such an affidavit upon five days’ demand by the owner (lessee in possession), it was not alleged or shown that the demand was made.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 So. 2d 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fontainebleau-hotel-corp-v-lowry-electric-co-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack