J. Batten Corp. v. Oakridge Investments 85, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1933,88-1933 |
| Citation | 546 So.2d 68,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1553 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1553 J. BATTEN CORP., Appellant, v. OAKRIDGE INVESTMENTS 85, LTD., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert W. Smith, Orlando, for appellant.
Patrick T. Christiansen and Robert L. Harding, of Smith, MacKinnon, Mathews, Harris & Christiansen, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.
J. Batten Corporation appeals a final judgment in favor of Oakridge Investments 85, Ltd., and others (Oakridge) in an action for a mechanic's lien, breach of contract and fraud. Judgment was entered after the trial court refused to allow Batten to amend its complaint to allege service of a contractor's affidavit and dismissed the remaining counts with prejudice. We reverse as to the mechanic's lien and breach of contract counts and remand for further proceedings.
In 1987, Batten was hired by Oakridge to construct a restaurant on property owned by Oakridge in Orlando. On January 7, 1988, Batten filed a claim of lien against Oakridge claiming that $82,593.00 remained unpaid. On January 29, 1988, Batten filed suit against Oakridge in three counts. In count I, Batten sought to foreclose a mechanic's lien in the amount of $82,593.00. Count II was an action for breach of the construction contract and count III was an action for fraud and punitive damages. As to this count, Batten alleged that in September 1987, Oakridge had refused to pay for work done by Batten and then induced Batten to complete construction based on Oakridge's fraudulent representation that it would pay the amount due under the contract.
The complaint was later amended in April 1988. In June 1988, Oakridge filed a motion for summary judgment alleging in part that Batten had failed to furnish a proper contractor's affidavit and therefore was not entitled to final payment. Although Batten maintained that the contractor's affidavit it had filed was sufficient, on June 30th Batten moved for leave to file an amended complaint which reflected service of a subsequent contractor's affidavit. The trial court refused to allow Batten to amend its complaint and dismissed the remaining counts with prejudice.
As its first point on appeal, Batten argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow it to amend its complaint to include a proper contractor's affidavit and then to enter summary judgment in favor of Oakridge.
In Holding Electric, Inc. v. Roberts, 530 So.2d 301 (Fla.1988), the Florida Supreme Court held that the failure to deliver a contractor's affidavit was not a fatal jurisdictional defect and that an amended complaint may be filed to show delivery of the contractor's affidavit, provided that the statute of limitations has not run prior to the filing of the amended complaint. See also Coquina Ltd. v. Nicholson Cabinet Company, 509 So.2d 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Shores of Indian River, Inc. v. Gart Urban Associates, Inc., 478 So.2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); McMahan Construction Co. v. Carol's Care Center, 460 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Since Batten's claim of lien was filed in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kingston Square Tenants v. Tuskegee Gardens, 91-6029-CIV.
...an action for fraud, if dependent on the performance of the lease obligation, is not actionable. J. Batten Corp. v. Oakridge Investments 85, Ltd., 546 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1989); Williams Elec. Co., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 772 F.Supp. 1225, 1237 (N.D.Fla.1991). Fraud in the i......
-
Future Tech Intern., Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., 95-2512-CIV.
...where the misrepresentation was "inextricable from the events constituting a breach of contract"); J. Batten Corp. v. Oakridge Investments 85[,] Ltd., 546 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (dismissing fraud claim in breach of contract case). No Florida case that we can find has expressly hel......
-
Williams Elec. Co., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
...to fraud claims. See Interstate Securities Corp. v. Hayes Corp., 920 F.2d 769, 775-777 (11th Cir. 1991); J. Batten Corp. v. Oakridge Inv. 85, 546 So.2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). J. Batten Corp., supra, is factually analogous to the circumstances here. In that case, a general contractor sued t......
-
Frontier Properties Corp. v. Swanberg
...794, 795, 247 P.2d 83, 83 (1952); Hayutin v. Gibbons, 139 Colo. 262, 265-67, 338 P.2d 1032, 1035 (1959); J. Batten Corp. v. Oakridge Inv. 85, Ltd., 546 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla.App.1989); Cato v. David Excavating Co., 435 N.E.2d 597, 606 (Ind.App.1982); Rafaelsen v. Olson, 174 Kan. 86, 86-87, 254 ......