COMMERCIAL JET INC. v. BANK
Decision Date | 03 November 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 3D10-619.,3D10-619. |
Parties | COMMERCIAL JET, INC., Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
McDonald and McDonald and David M. McDonald, Miami, for appellant.
White & Case and Stephen M. Corse, and Rachel Sullivan, Miami, for appellee.
Before CORTIÑAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Commercial Jet filed this action to foreclose a purported mechanic's lien on a Boeing 767 aircraft for which it had provided maintenance and repairs. Despite an outstanding balance, Commercial Jet returned the aircraft to Silver Jet, its operator, which put it back into service. After it relinquished possession of the aircraft, Commercial Jet recorded a claim of lien under sections 713.58 and 329.51, Florida Statutes, for the unpaid balance against Silver Jet and U.S. Bank, the aircraft's owner. Since the purported lien is a possessory lien under section 713.58, and Commercial Jet was no longer in possession of the aircraft at the time it filed the lien, the trial court granted U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment. We affirm the trial court's order and reject Commercial Jet's argument that section 329.51 modifies section 713.58 by eliminating the requirement that one must have possession of the property in order to claim a lien.
Section 713.58 creates a lien “[i]n favor of persons performing labor or services for any other person, upon the personal property of the latter upon which the labor or services is performed....” § 713.58(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). This lien exists only as long as the person entitled to the lien retains possession of the property upon which the lien is claimed: the statute expressly provides that “the possessory right and lien of the person performing labor or services under this section is released, relinquished, and lost by the removal of such property....” § 713.58(3), Fla. Stat. (2009). Therefore, there is no question that the lien right afforded by section 713.58 is possessory in nature and that a repairman's right to claim a lien under section 713.58 is extinguished when he relinquishes possession of the property on which the lien is asserted. See State v. Miller, 373 So.2d 677, 680 (Fla.1979) ( ); E. Airlines Empls. Fed. Credit Union v. Lauderdale Yacht Basin, Inc., 334 So.2d 175, 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) ( ); see also In re Tradewinds Airlines, Inc., 394 B.R. 614, 622 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2008) ( ); Archive Am., Inc. v. Variety Children's Hosp., 873 So.2d 359, 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) ( ).
Commercial Jet agrees that section 713.58 “has been interpreted to” require possession but argues that section 329.51 amended section 713.58 by providing that a valid lien can be created simply by recording a claim of lien within ninety days. However, section 329.51 does not create any new lien rights. Instead, it is manifestly a notice statute, as is apparent by its title (“Liens for labor, services, fuel, or material expended upon aircraft; notice”), and it specifically states that it applies to “[a]ny lien claimed on an aircraft under s. 329.41 or s. 713.58 ....” § 329.51, Fla. Stat. (2009) (emphasis added). Section 329.41 creates a lien right for fuel furnished to aircraft; section 713.58 creates a lien right for labor or services performed on aircraft and other personal property. Section 329.51 details how, once a fuel or service provider acquires a lien on an aircraft pursuant to section 329.41 or 713.58, he may perfect his lien and establish priority of enforcement as it relates to third parties. Thus, section 329.51 has no application here because Commercial Jet never acquired a valid lien under sections 713.58 or 329.41.
As Commercial Jet did not have possession of the aircraft when it attempted to claim a possessory lien under section 713.58, it cannot proceed in its attempt to foreclose on the purported lien. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank.
Affirmed.
Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Global Xtreme, Inc. v. Advanced Aircraft Ctr., Inc.
... ... Section 329.51 is a notice statute that applies to liens claimed on an aircraft. See generally Commercial Jet, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 45 So.3d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Neither section 713.58 nor section 329.51 provides for attorney's fees.Advanced ... ...
-
US Acquisition, LLC v. Tabas, Freedman, Soloff, Miller & Brown, P.A.
... ... enforcing the attorney's charging lien which was attached to an aircraft.Rockbridge Commercial Bank (Rockbridge) was the lender in a transaction with Kaizen Aviation, LLC (Kaizen) where Kaizen ... US Acquisition relies heavily on Creston Aviation, Inc. v. Textron Financial Corp., 900 So.2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), which provides that [u]ntil a lien ... ...
-
J.V. Air Maint., Inc. v. Westwind Leasing, Corp., 3D18-2212
... ... Assocs. Commercial Corp. v. Ross, 465 So. 2d 663, 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) ; Eastern Airlines Emps. Fed. Credit Union v. Lauderdale Yacht Basin, Inc., 334 So. 2d 175 ... argues, however, that these cases conflict with our decision in Commercial Jet, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A, 45 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). We fail to see any conflict. In Commercial Jet, the purported lienor voluntarily returned the property and ... ...
- Commercial Jet, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., SC10–2438.
-
Aircraft Lien Law.
...Florida's Third District Court of Appeal answered both of these questions a decade ago in Commercial Jet, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 45 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). That decision, however, not only produced "conflict with just about every cannon of legislative interpretation there is," acco......