Rausman v. Borggren/Dickson Construction Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rausman v. Borggren/Dickson Construction Inc.

591 So. 2d 270, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9961, 1991 WL 203463

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1991

DocketNo. 89-3045

StatusPublished

This text of 591 So. 2d 270 (Rausman v. Borggren/Dickson Construction 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

Rausman v. Borggren/Dickson Construction Inc., 591 So. 2d 270, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9961, 1991 WL 203463 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, Borggren/Dickson Construction, Inc., has filed a petition for rehearing directed to our opinion of April 17, 1991, which it contends overlooks or misapprehends several important aspects of this case. The motion is particularly directed at our analysis and conclusion regarding the notice to owner pursuant to section 713.10, Florida Statutes, and disposition of any question regarding a showing of lack of prejudice and identity of interest of certain parties. Appellee suggests on rehearing that we should affirm the trial court order as to all issues except the issue raised in Point One of appellant’s brief.

We concede the validity of appellee’s contentions and, having reconsidered the entire matter, we withdraw our opinion of April 17, 1991, and affirm the decision of the trial court in all respects except as to the factual issue raised in Point One regarding whether there were two separate contracts involved herein or just one contract and a change order, and the effect thereon of a single claim of lien. As to that issue we reverse the order appealed from and remand for further proceedings regarding that issue.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ„ concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, Borggren/Dickson Construction, Inc., has filed a petition for rehearing directed to our opinion of April 17, 1991, which it contends overlooks or misapprehends several important aspects of this case. The motion is particularly directed at our analysis and conclusion regarding the notice to owner pursuant to section 713.10, Florida Statutes, and disposition of any question regarding a showing of lack of prejudice and identity of interest of certain parties. Appellee suggests on rehearing that we should affirm the trial court order as to all issues except the issue raised in Point One of appellant’s brief.

We concede the validity of appellee’s contentions and, having reconsidered the entire matter, we withdraw our opinion of April 17, 1991, and affirm the decision of the trial court in all respects except as to the factual issue raised in Point One regarding whether there were two separate contracts involved herein or just one contract and a change order, and the effect thereon of a single claim of lien. As to that issue we reverse the order appealed from and remand for further proceedings regarding that issue.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 So. 2d 270, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9961, 1991 WL 203463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rausman-v-borggrendickson-construction-inc-fladistctapp-1991.