Inland Materials, Inc. v. Superior Aircraft Hangars, Inc.

464 So. 2d 1320, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 701, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12983
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 14, 1985
DocketNo. 84-182
StatusPublished

This text of 464 So. 2d 1320 (Inland Materials, Inc. v. Superior Aircraft Hangars, 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
Inland Materials, Inc. v. Superior Aircraft Hangars, Inc., 464 So. 2d 1320, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 701, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12983 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinions

COWART, Judge.

This case involves a dismissal of a mate-rialman’s action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for failure to state a cause of action by not properly alleging delivery of a claim of lien1 to the lessee of certain realty.

Superior Aircraft Hangars, the lessee of certain real property, contracted for improvements to be made to the leased property. A materialman (Inland Materials) furnished concrete and steel to the contractor. The materialman filed a complaint to foreclose a mechanic’s lien upon the lessee’s leasehold interest. The complaint alleged that the materialman had served a copy of its claim of lien on the lessee by certified mail, return receipt requested.

At trial when the materialman offered the certified mail return receipt card to prove that the claim of lien was delivered, the lessee objected on the basis that such evidence was outside the scope of the pleadings. The lessee claimed the complaint was insufficient because it did not allege that the lessee received the claim of lien as required by section 713.18, Florida Statutes.2 The court agreed and held that since the complaint did not allege that the claim of lien was delivered the return receipt card could not be admitted into evidence. Finding that the receipt of the claim of lien was an essential element of the materialman’s cause of action, the court dismissed the action after denying the materialman’s oral motion to amend the complaint to allege receipt of the claim of lien. The court entered final judgment against the materialman. The materialman appeals. We reverse.

The general rule in Florida is that as to amendments to pleadings, a court abuses its discretion if it does not allow a party to amend its pleadings unless that party has abused the amendment privilege or it appears that a deficiency cannot be cured. See McNayr v. Cranbrook Investments, Inc., 158 So.2d 129 (Fla.1963); Tucker v. Brennan, 458 So.2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Hickory Lakes of Brandon, Inc., 458 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Dingess v. Florida Aircraft Sales and Leasing, Inc., 442 So.2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Winfield v. Noe, 426 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Affordable Homes, Inc. v. Devil’s Run, Ltd., 408 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Anthony v. Jacksonville Transportation Authority, 383 So.2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Highlands County School Board v. K.D. Hedin Construction, Inc., 382 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Osborne v. Delta Maintenance and Welding, Inc., 365 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See also Hardee v. Richardson, 47 So.2d 520 (Fla.1950); S & S Air Conditioning Company v. Cantor, 313 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (as to mechanic’s liens).

In this case the lessee did not move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action by failing to allege delivery of the claim of lien. There is no genuine issue as to the fact that the claim of lien was delivered and that the material-man can prove that fact. Even if the allegations of the complaint were insufficient, a point we need not decide, the material-man’s oral motion during trial to amend its complaint to allege delivery of the claim of lien constituted a reasonable request and should have been granted. The lessee’s objection to the proposed amendment was [1322]*1322technical and did not demonstrate legal prejudice. As the amendment was deemed necessary by the trial court to meet the statutory prerequisite, the trial court erred by not allowing the amendment and by not admitting the tendered proof and by dismissing the action.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, J., concurs. COBB, C.J., concurs specially with opinion.

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

Related

Anthony v. JACKSONVILLE TRANSP. AUTHORITY
383 So. 2d 650 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Dingess v. Fla. Aircraft Sales & Leasing, Inc.
442 So. 2d 431 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
HIGHLANDS CTY. SCHOOL BD. v. KD Hedin Construction, Inc.
382 So. 2d 90 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
McNayr v. Cranbrook Investments, Inc.
158 So. 2d 129 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1963)
Winfield v. Noe
426 So. 2d 1148 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Osborne v. Delta Maintenance & Welding, Inc.
365 So. 2d 425 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Hardee v. Richardson
47 So. 2d 520 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1950)
Affordable Homes, Inc. v. Devil's Run, Ltd.
408 So. 2d 679 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
HALLMARK BLDRS. v. Hickory Lakes of Brandon
458 So. 2d 45 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
S & S Air Conditioning Co. v. Cantor
313 So. 2d 422 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Tucker v. Brennan
458 So. 2d 367 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
464 So. 2d 1320, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 701, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inland-materials-inc-v-superior-aircraft-hangars-inc-fladistctapp-1985.