Nolan Contracting, Inc. v. Nickson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nolan Contracting, Inc. v. Nickson

544 So. 2d 1082, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1402, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3233, 1989 WL 61129

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1989

DocketNo. 89-00304

StatusPublished

This text of 544 So. 2d 1082 (Nolan Contracting, Inc. v. Nickson) 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

Nolan Contracting, Inc. v. Nickson, 544 So. 2d 1082, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1402, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3233, 1989 WL 61129 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We quash that part of the trial court’s order which denied petitioner’s motion for a change or substitution of surety, filed pursuant to section 713.24(3), Florida Statutes (1987). We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying petitioner’s motion in light of the fact that the surety, which provided the “transfer” bond posted by respondents to protect their real property from the claim of lien filed by petitioner, is in receivership.

Accordingly, the denial of the motion for change or substitution of surety is quashed. The order is affirmed in all other respects. We remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

DAHANY, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We quash that part of the trial court’s order which denied petitioner’s motion for a change or substitution of surety, filed pursuant to section 713.24(3), Florida Statutes (1987). We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying petitioner’s motion in light of the fact that the surety, which provided the “transfer” bond posted by respondents to protect their real property from the claim of lien filed by petitioner, is in receivership.

Accordingly, the denial of the motion for change or substitution of surety is quashed. The order is affirmed in all other respects. We remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

DAHANY, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 1082, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1402, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3233, 1989 WL 61129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nolan-contracting-inc-v-nickson-fladistctapp-1989.