You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Onionskin, Inc. v. DeCiccio

Citations: 720 So. 2d 257; 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12282; 1998 WL 653606Docket: No. 97-2936

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 25, 1998; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by Onionskin, Inc. against a summary judgment that invalidated its lien on the residence of the DeCiccios for $110,729.88. The trial court determined that Onionskin's lien was willfully exaggerated, either intentionally or through gross negligence, as it included non-lienable items and claims related to alleged delays caused by the property owners. The total remodeling cost, including 17 change orders, was $368,764.14, but the DeCiccios had already paid $258,134.26. Onionskin argued that Change Order 17, totaling $39,807.89, was not included in the lien, but evidence showed the lien’s amount matched the total project cost when accounting for all change orders. Citing *Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc.*, the court noted that a good faith filing of a larger amount does not constitute a fraudulent lien. However, the trial court found Onionskin's lien lacked good faith due to improper inclusions, violating Florida Statute § 713.05, which mandates that liens must be for labor and materials directly related to the contract, excluding claims for damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, agreeing that the lien was willfully exaggerated and demonstrated bad faith, thereby supporting the trial court's discretion.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review and Affirmation of Trial Court's Discretion

Application: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, agreeing that the lien was willfully exaggerated and supported the trial court's exercise of discretion.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the lien was willfully exaggerated and demonstrated bad faith, as it included non-lienable claims.

Compliance with Florida Statute § 713.05 for Construction Liens

Application: The court emphasized that, under Florida Statute § 713.05, a contractor's lien must include only amounts for labor and materials directly related to the contract and exclude claims for damages from alleged breaches.

Reasoning: Florida Statute § 713.05 stipulates that a contractor's lien must be for money owed for labor and materials directly related to the contract, excluding claims for damages from alleged breaches by property owners.

Good Faith Requirement in Filing Construction Liens

Application: The court highlighted that a lien must be filed in good faith, contrasting this case with *Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc.*, and found that Onionskin's lien lacked good faith due to improper inclusions.

Reasoning: However, unlike in *Stevens*, the trial court concluded that Onionskin's lien lacked good faith due to the inclusion of improper items.

Inclusion of Non-Lienable Items in Construction Liens

Application: The court found that Onionskin included non-lienable items in its lien, particularly claims related to alleged delays caused by the property owners, thus demonstrating bad faith.

Reasoning: The trial court found several items in Change Order 17 non-lienable, particularly those alleging delays caused by the DeCiccios.

Invalidation of Construction Lien Due to Exaggeration

Application: The court invalidated Onionskin, Inc.'s lien against the DeCiccios' residence, determining that the lien was willfully exaggerated either intentionally or through gross negligence.

Reasoning: The trial court determined that the lien was willfully exaggerated, either by intention or due to gross negligence.