Palm Beach Bank & Trust Co. v. Lainhart
| Citation | 84 Fla. 662,95 So. 122 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Decision Date | 12 December 1922 |
| Parties | PALM BEACH BANK & TRUST CO. v. LAINHART et al. |
Suit by George W. Lainhart and George W. Potter, doing business as Lainhart & Potter, and others, against the Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company. From the decree entered, defendant appeals.
Reversed with directions.
Syllabus by the Court
Attach from moment labor performed or material furnished, but do not relate back to commencement of construction regardless of who began work. Under the statutes of this state (Rev. Gen. St 1920, § 3495), providing for liens in favor of laborers and materialmen who may perform labor or furnish material in the construction or repair of any building, etc. (section 3495 et seq., Rev. St. 1920), the acquisition of the lien does not relate back to the commencement of the construction proposed to be carried on regardless of who began the work. Such liens are acquired individually and separately by each laborer and materialman and attach from the monent the labor is performed and material furnished, and, if such labor is performed or materials are supplied upon a continuing contract to supply the same for the building or structure, the lien attaches or is acquired from the moment the first material is furnished or laber supplied under the contract and covers all material furnished or labor supplied thereunder.
Superior to liens acquired thereafter. All liens in favor of laborers or materialmen are prior in dignity to liens acquired thereafter.
Attorney's fees not allowable in action to enforce lien. Solicitor's fees in favor of materialmen and laborers are not allowable in an action or suit against the owner of the property to enforce the lien.
Attach to appurtenances to buildings where erected and included in one plan or scheme of improvement. Where cement walks, a pergola, driveways, and garages are all appurtenant to the buildings erected and included in one plan or scheme of improvement, liens in favor of laborers or materialmen who perform labor thereon or furnish material therefor attach to the buildings and land upon which they stand.
Architect has no lien for value of plans and specifications of building. No lien exists in favor of an architect merely for the value of the plans and specifications prepared by him for the owner of the building erected, upon such buildings.
Building subject to lien for services of supervisor of erection and selection of materials. Supervising the erection of a building and the selection of materials to be placed therein is such character of labor as the statute contemplates shall be provided for in a lien upon the building erected.
Decree of chancellor supported by substantial evidence not disturbed. When the decree of the chancellor is supported by substantial evidence, the decree will not be disturbed.
[PALM BEACH BANK & TRUST CO V LAINHART 95 So. 122(1922)] Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; E. C. Davis, judge.
Blackwell, Donnell & McCracken, of West Palm Beach, for appellant.
H. L. Bussey, Thompson & Winters, A. C. Adams, and C. C. & C. E. Chillingworth, all of West Palm Beach, for appellees.
In April, 1919, Douglas Graham owned certain lands in the city of West Palm Beach and caused a plat to be prepared of said land and designated it 'Graham Circle.' That plat showed a division of the property into ten small parcels, or lots, with a common entrance on the south line of the Okeechobee road. The entrance is in the form of a horseshoe upon the outer edge of which, 15 feet wide, is a driveway. Fronting upon this driveway are seven lots numbered from 1 to 7, inclusive, and upon the east and west sides of the tract are lots numbered 9 and 10.
Mr Graham conceived the plan of constructing upon the seven lots, fronting upon the horseshoe drive, seven dwelling houses and upon the other two lots, numbered 9 and 10, two garages for the accommodation of the persons who might occupy the seven dwelling houses, and a pergola within the horseshoe.
In the execution of this plan he employed E. A. Fonder, to prepare the plat and to supervise the erection and construction of all the buildings and structures contemplated by the plan. Prior to the commencement of the work of erecting the buildings, Graham and Fonder made certain arrangments with materialmen and laborers for materials and labor to be utilized in the construction of the buildings, roadways, drives, and pergola.
The actual construction of the buildings was commenced on the 22d of April, 1919, and prior to the 10th of May, 1919, some of the materialmen and laborers had furnished materials and performed labor in the construction of the buildings.
On the 7th of May, 1919, Mr. Graham obtained a loan of $15,000 from the Bank of Palm Beach. The debt was represented by three promissory notes of $5,000 each and payable in one, two, and three years after date, respectively. To secure the payment of these notes, Mr. Graham executed and delivered to the Bank of Palm Beach a mortgage upon the land which had been platted as described at least so much of it as was described by the following words: 'Graham Circle in Graham Park, being lots one (1) to seven (7) inclusive, West Palm Beach, Florida.' The mortgage was duly recorded on May 10, 1919.
On the 5th of February, 1920, Lainhart & Potter, Palm Beach Electric Supply Company and Phillips & Fagg exhibited their bill in the circuit court of Palm Beach county against Douglas Graham, Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company, J. B. Orr, East Coast Hardware Company, M. T. Crabtree, E. A. Fonder, Fred Johnson, and Mott & Glass to enforce liens for materials furnished and labor performed in the construction of the buildings.
It is alleged that J. B. Orr and M. T. Crabtree furnished certain materials and performed labor in the erection and construction of the buildings, and that E. A. Fonder and Fred Johnson each performed labor in and about the erection and construction of the buildings; that Mott & Glass furnished materials and performed labor thereon, and that on the 7th of May, 1919, the Bank of Palm Beach, the name of which had been changed to the Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company, made a loan of $15,000 to Douglas Graham which was secured by a mortgage as hereinbefore stated.
It is alleged in the bill that the erection and construction of the buildings and improvements upon the land had commenced prior to the making of the loan by the bank to Graham, and that the complainants had commenced the furnishing and delivering of materials upon the lands to be used in the construction of the buildings and improvements. At the time of the making of the loan by the bank it knew, and was advised, that the complainants were furnishing materials and performing labor in and about the erection of the buildings and improvements on the land. It is alleged that other persons, to the complainants unknown, had furnished materials and performed labor in the construction of the buildings, and that notices of liens in behalf of the complainants had been given to Mr. Graham and were filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for Palm Beach county. And such notices of liens were given and filed at different times from the 15th of November, 1919, to some time in January, 1920.
The bill prayed for an accounting, that a lien in favor of the complainants be declared to exist upon the property, that a receiver be appointed to take possession of it, that the priorities of the different lienors be declared, and that the complainants be declared to have a superior lien to that of the mortgage held by the Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company, and that Graham be decreed to pay the amount found to be due within a short day to be fixed by the court together with interest and solicitor's fees, and for general relief.
The Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company answered disclaiming any knowledge of materials and labor furnished by the complainants and demanded strict proof of the same. The answer admitted the loan made by it to Graham on the 7th of May, 1919, and denied that at the time the loan was made, and at the time of the recordation of the mortgage, the erection and construction of the buildings had commenced, and denied that it had any knowledge that the complainants were furnishing materials and performing labor as alleged in the bill.
The answer set up the making of the loan to Graham and the execution of the mortgage as a basis for affirmative relief and [PALM BEACH BANK & TRUST CO V LAINHART 95 So. 122(1922)] alleged that the mortgage contained a covenant to the effect that, if the promissory notes were not paid or the stipulations contained therein performed, the entire sum mentioned in said notes should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hunter v. State
-
Van Eepoel Real Estate Co. v. Sarasota Milk Co.
... ... of recording. See Guaranty Trust Co. v. Thompson, 93 ... Fla. 983, 113 So. 117; ... Southern Bank & Trust Co. v. Mathers, 90 Fla. 542, ... 106 So. 402), ... It was ... definitely held in Palm Beach Bank & Trust Company v ... Lainhart et al., 84 ... ...
-
Standard Oil Co. v. National Surety Co.
... ... [143 Miss. 846] ... City Trust, S.D. & Surety Co. v. U.S. 77 C. C. A ... 397, 147 F ... See Palm Beach Bank & Trust Co. v. Lainhard, 95 So ... 122; ... ...
-
JJ Henry Co. v. United States
...in Florida was to deny a lien to architects who only furnish plans used in the construction of a building. Palm Beach Bank & Trust Co. v. Lainhart, 84 Fla. 662, 95 So. 122 (1922). In Street v. Safway Steel Scaffold Co., 148 So.2d 38, 41 (Fla.App., 1962), the court analyzed the new * * * Pri......
-
Code liens are not "superpriority" liens: is it the end of the debate?
...v. Thompson, 93 Fla. 983, 989 (1927) (citing Peoples Bank v. Arbuckle, 82 Fla. 479 (1921); Palm Beach Bank & Trust Co. v. Lainhart, 84 Fla. 662 (1922)) ("the general rule of priority is that the lien which is first in time is first in (20) City of Palm Bay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 201......