Morganti South, Inc. v. Hardy Contractors, Inc., 79-2324
| Decision Date | 15 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-2324,79-2324 |
| Citation | 397 So.2d 378 |
| Parties | MORGANTI SOUTH, INC., and Federal Insurance Company, Appellants, v. HARDY CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Adam B. Construction Corp., etal., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald J. Beuttenmuller, Jr., of Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Lawrence H. Feder of Robert E. Dubow, P. A., Dania, for appellee, Hardy Contractors, Inc.
This appeal from a non-final order presents a venue question in the context of a mechanic's lien action under Chapter 713, Florida Statutes. The trial court refused to change venue from Broward County where the action was filed to Palm Beach County. We conclude the court erred and reverse.
Appellant Morganti South, Inc., was the general contractor on a construction project in Palm Beach County. Hardy Contractors, Inc., supplied materials to the job pursuant to a contract with a sub-contractor. Hardy filed a claim of lien in Palm Beach County asserting non-payment for the materials. The general contractor had posted a payment bond pursuant to Section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1977). The general contractor filed a Notice of Bond and the lien was transferred to the security pursuant to Section 713.24, Florida Statutes (1977). Suit was eventually filed by Hardy Contractors, Inc., in Broward County against Morganti South, Inc., the general contractor, and its surety on the payment bond. There was no attempt to assert a lien against the real estate. The construction project was in Palm Beach County and the claim of lien, the bond, and the Notice of Bond were all filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County. Morganti moved to transfer the case against it and its surety to Palm Beach County, and the trial court denied the motion. Our review of Sections 713.23 and 713.24, Florida Statutes (1977), convinces us that the proper venue for the action against the general contractor and surety on the bond was in Palm Beach County where the security had been deposited.
Appellant Morganti argues that although the action was one on the bond, it was in actuality a suit to enforce a mechanic's lien and remained an in rem proceeding which should have been brought in the county where the property was located. Appellee Hardy counters that the action on the bond is basically unrelated to a mechanic's lien, that it is a transitory cause of action and may be brought outside the county where the property is located.
The transfer of a mechanic's lien from the real estate to a bond does not obviate the necessity of the lien claimant's proving all the prerequisites necessary to enforcement of the lien even though the realty may no longer be encumbered by the lien. On the contrary, the lien...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc.
...is in the county where the security was deposited and not in the county where the property is located. Morganti South, Inc. v. Hardy Contractors, Inc., 397 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The transfer of the security of the lien from the land to the bond pursuant to statute apparently result......
-
Carlson-Southeast Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., CARLSON-SOUTHEAST
...the debtor, was required to seek out Florida Fill, the creditor. 387 So.2d at 1007. Appellants rely on Morganti South, Inc. v. Hardy Contractors, Inc., 397 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), as support for their contention that section 713.24(3) requires that a suit to recover on a bond must be......
-
Walbridge Aldinger Co. v. ROBERTS PLUMB. CONTR. INC., 3D01-1225.
...thereof, or any other matter affecting said security. § 713.24(3), Fla. Stat. (1998). Citing us to Morganti South, Inc. v. Hardy Contractors, Inc., 397 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and Halls Ceramic Tile, Inc. v. Tiede-Zoeller Tile Corp., 522 So.2d 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), Roberts Plumbing......
-
Greene v. A.G.B.B. Hotels, Inc.
...is in the county where the security was deposited and not in the county where the property is located. Morganti South, Inc. v. Hardy Contractors, Inc., 397 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The transfer of the security of the lien from the land to the bond pursuant to statute apparently result......
-
Venue considerations in construction disputes.
...multiple suits in different forums, which could result in two different outcomes. In Morganti South, Inc. v. Hardy Contractors, Inc., 397 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), a material supplier to a subcontractor recorded a construction lien in Palm Beach County. The contractor transferred the ......