Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Lowry Electric Co.

269 So. 2d 738
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 28, 1972·No. No. 72-331·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

269 So. 2d 738 (Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Lowry Electric Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sowers v. Hoenstine
417 So. 2d 1137 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Leader Mortg. Co. v. RICKARDS ELEC. SERVICE
348 So. 2d 1202 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Novack v. Lowry Electric Co.
273 So. 2d 425 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)