Bieley v. Jennings Const. Corp.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--829,67--829 |
| Citation | 212 So.2d 809 |
| Parties | Alfred D. BIELEY and Peggy Bieley, his wife, Appellants, v. JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and Milton S. Jennings, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas A. Horkan, Jr., Miami, for appellants.
Martin Levinson, Perrine, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
Mr. and Mrs. Bieley appeal a final judgment entered against them after an adverse verdict.
The appellee corporation had petitioned the circuit court, pursuant to § 86.06, Fla.Stat. (1963), 1 F.S.A., to enforce a laborer's lien upon real property of the appellants for labor performed on that real property by employees of the corporation. The appellants filed a motion to quash the petition, a traverse, and a counterclaim. The counterclaim alleged improper and fraudulent charges and defective workmanship. The court held a hearing on the motion to quash and ordered:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
After a lengthy trial the jury found for the plaintiff-appellee corporation upon its claim for a balance due under the construction contract between the parties and against the defendant-appellants upon their counterclaim. The judgment, based upon the verdict (which did not refer to appellee's claim as a lien), contained an order
'* * * that Final Judgment be entered against the Defendants, Alfred D. Bieley and Peggy Bieley, his wife, and in favor of the Plaintiff, Jennings Construction Corporation, in the sum of $4,264.39 * * * plus an attorney's fee in favor of the Plaintiff in the sum of $2500.00 * * * for which said sum let execution issue.'
The appellants present three points on appeal. The first urges that the court erred in refusing to grant their motions for a directed verdict. Appellants argue that the appellee corporation was precluded from recovery upon its complaint as a matter of law because the lien was rendered unenforceable by the following subsections of § 84.311, Fla.Stat. (1963), F.S.A.:
'(2) (a) Any lien asserted under this chapter in which the lienor has wilfully exaggerated the amount for which such lien is claimed or in which the lienor has wilfully included a claim for work not performed upon or materials not furnished for the property upon which he seeks to impress such lien or in which the lienor has compiled his claim with such wilful and gross negligence as to amount to a wilful exaggeration, shall be deemed a fraudulent lien.
'(b) It shall be a complete defense to any action to enforce a lien under this chapter, or against any lien in any action in which the validity of the lien is an issue, that the lien is a fraudulent lien and the court so finding is empowered to and shall declare the lien unenforceable and the lienor shall thereupon forfeit his right to any lien on the property upon which he sought to impress such fraudulent lien.'
The appellants urge that because the appellee corporation abandoned certain portions of its claim at trial and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guthartz v. Lewis
...1980); Houdaille-Duval-Wright Company v. Charldon Construction Company, 266 So.2d 106 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Bieley v. Jennings Construction Corporation, 212 So.2d 809 (Fla.3d DCA 1968) (holding that a statute providing for attorneys' fees upon foreclosure of a lien does not authorize attorneys......
-
Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, LAN-CHILE
...Bal Harbour, Inc. v. Kiester, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 121; Lovell v. Henry, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 67; Bieley v. Jennings Construction Corporation, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 809, 811. Lastly, the appellant has raised a new point in the reply brief. Actually, the point is new only insofar as ......
-
Martin v. Paskow
...nature of the action so that full relief cannot be granted except by the allowance of such a fee. See Bieley v. Jennings Construction Corporation, 212 So.2d 809 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). Appellees urge that while there is not, and should not, be a rule that attorneys' fees are an element of damage......
-
Midway Shopping Mall, Inc. v. Airtech Air Conditioning, Inc., 71--701
...Rule 1.120(b), 30 F.S.A.; see also Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.110(b), 30 F.S.A. See generally Bieley v. Jennings Construction Corporation, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 809. As to attorney's fees, we express the view that where the trial court dismissed the count for foreclosure of the me......