Narrative Opinion Summary
In Keller v. Newman Sons, Inc., the District Court of Appeal of Florida adjudicated an appeal concerning a construction lien. Homeowner Joan O. Keller contracted with Strickland Electric Service for a generator installation but failed to file a notice of commencement as mandated by Florida's Construction Lien Law. Strickland supplied an Onan generator instead of the contracted Katolight model, for which Keller accepted a price adjustment. Newman Sons, supplier of the generator, filed a lien notice after Strickland defaulted on payments and went out of business. Keller contested the lien, arguing nonconformity with the contract terms. The trial court favored Newman, prompting an appeal. The appellate court found Newman's lien claim invalid due to the generator's nonconformity, though acknowledged Keller's acceptance estopped her from that claim, and ruled her initial payment was proper since it predated Newman's notice. The court affirmed Newman's right to claim the completion contract sum due to Keller's procedural noncompliance. The decision was partially affirmed, reversed, and remanded, with instructions on statutory interpretation and payment responsibilities to lienors. The case underscores the strict procedural adherence required in construction lien contexts under Florida law.
Legal Issues Addressed
Construction Lien Nonconformitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Newman's lien claim was invalid because the generator delivered did not conform to the contract's specified terms.
Reasoning: Since Keller's direct contract called for a Katolight generator and the delivered generator was an Onan, this nonconformity undermined Newman's lien claim.
Estoppel in Construction Liensubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Keller was estopped from claiming nonconformity after accepting the non-conforming generator with a price adjustment.
Reasoning: The owner is estopped from claiming nonconformity of the generator because, upon delivery, the homeowner acknowledged its nonconformity but accepted it for a price credit.
Interpretation of Statutory Referencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court corrected Newman's misinterpretation of statutory cross-references relevant to lien notices.
Reasoning: Newman’s interpretation of statutory cross-references is incorrect; the reference to 'subparagraph 2' pertains to subparagraph 713.06(3)(c)2., not subsection 713.06(2).
Lienor Notice Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Newman's notice to the owner within the statutory period affected only future payments, not those made prior.
Reasoning: Newman provided notice to the owner within the required forty-five days and before any payment to the successor contractor was made.
Owner's Compliance with Subsection 713.07(4)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Keller's failure to comply with subsection 713.07(4) enabled Newman to claim the completion contract amount.
Reasoning: Due to the homeowner's failure to comply with subsection 713.07(4), Newman is entitled to claim approximately $3,500 for the completion contract.
Proper Payment under Florida Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Keller's initial payment was proper as Newman had not served notice before the payment was made.
Reasoning: The homeowner's progress payment of $19,409.50 was deemed proper under the current Florida Statutes, as Newman had not served a notice to the owner until after the payment was made.