Narrative Opinion Summary
Reversal and remand for a new trial were ordered due to the trial court's error in involuntarily dismissing the appellant's case. The appellant demonstrated entitlement to recovery against the appellee under section 255.05 of the Florida Statutes (1991), either as a claimant or as an assignee. Evidence showed the appellant maintained direct privity with the general contractor throughout the project, justifying a judicial resolution of the claim on its merits. The decision was concurred by Chief Judge Glickstein, Judge Anstead, and Senior Judge Owen.
Legal Issues Addressed
Entitlement to Recovery under Florida Statutes Section 255.05subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant demonstrated a valid claim for recovery against the appellee as either a claimant or an assignee under section 255.05 of the Florida Statutes (1991).
Reasoning: The appellant demonstrated entitlement to recovery against the appellee under section 255.05 of the Florida Statutes (1991), either as a claimant or as an assignee.
Involuntary Dismissalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's decision to involuntarily dismiss the appellant's case was deemed erroneous, leading to a reversal and remand for a new trial.
Reasoning: Reversal and remand for a new trial were ordered due to the trial court's error in involuntarily dismissing the appellant's case.
Privity with General Contractorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant maintained direct privity with the general contractor throughout the project, supporting the need for a judicial resolution on the merits of the claim.
Reasoning: Evidence showed the appellant maintained direct privity with the general contractor throughout the project, justifying a judicial resolution of the claim on its merits.