Suchman v. National Hauling, Inc.

549 So. 2d 200, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1701, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4088
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 18, 1989
DocketNos. 88-676, 88-680
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 549 So. 2d 200 (Suchman v. National Hauling, 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
Suchman v. National Hauling, Inc., 549 So. 2d 200, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1701, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4088 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

National Hauling, Inc. provided fill to a paving subcontractor on a construction site of which Suchman was the owner and Worldwide Construction Corp. the general contractor. When it was not paid, National Hauling sued to impress a mechanic’s lien on the property for the value of its materials. After trial, the lower court denied the application for a mechanic’s lien on the asserted ground that National Hauling had not delivered a copy of the “notice to owner” to the general contractor, Worldwide,1 within forty-five days of commencement as required by section 713.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). On a quantum meruit theory, however, the court granted a simple money judgment of $29,208.29 representing the value of the fill. After initially awarding prejudgment interest of $8,373.18, it struck that element from the judgment. Both National Hauling and Suchman have taken separate appeals from the adverse aspects of these rulings. We find no merit in Suchman’s appeal, but agree with both points presented by National Hauling.

We first conclude that the trial judge erred in failing to establish a mechanic’s lien in National Hauling’s favor. The basis of the ruling below, the failure to serve notice on the general contractor, as provided by section 713.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983),2 is, as the Fourth District has very recently held in Roof Structures, [202]*202Inc. v. Picou, 544 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), completely negated on the record. This is because, like the owner in Roof Structures, Suehman did not file the notice of commencement required by section 713.-13, Florida Statutes (1983)3 until after the forty-five day period for service of National Hauling ⅛ notice to the owner. If filed, the notice of commencement would have contained “the name and address of the contractor.” § 713.13(l)(a)4, Fla.Stat. (1983). See Roof Structures, at page 1139. The relationship, in turn, between this violation and the default relied upon below is established by the fact that, in this very case, National Hauling retained a professional service to search the public records and give the required notices to those entities which appeared in them. Thus, if Worldwide had been shown, as required in the notice of commencement, it would have received the notice under section 713.-06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). Following Roof Structures,4 we therefore likewise hold that the owner’s failure to file the required notice of commencement contributed to and rendered him unable to rely upon the materialman’s failure to serve its section 713.06(2)(a) notice upon the contractor.5

We also agree with National Hauling that an assessment of prejudgment interest, representing the value of the materials received and utilized by the owner, was required in this case. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985); Zacco Contractors, Inc. v. Irving Trust Co., 488 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The trial judge was thus correct in his initial ruling allowing this item and incorrect in striking it from the judgment finally entered below.

Lastly, as has been indicated, we have carefully considered the contentions raised by Suehman in his appeal in Case no. 88-680 and find no error.

Based upon these holdings, the lower court is directed to impress a mechanic’s lien in the principal amount of $29,208.29 as of the date of the judgment under re[203]*203view, together with prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs. Otherwise the judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

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

Related

Trump Endeavor 12, LLC v. Fernich, Inc., Etc.
216 So. 3d 704 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Martin Paving Co. v. United Pacific Ins. Co.
646 So. 2d 268 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
549 So. 2d 200, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1701, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suchman-v-national-hauling-inc-fladistctapp-1989.