Wood v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 14 December 1955 |
| Parties | D. Edward WOOD, Appellant, v. Myrtle B. WILSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
W. Shannon Linning, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Crawford & May and Tyrie A. Boyer, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Appellant Wood, who was plaintiff below, appeals from an order of the Chancellor sustaining a motion to dismiss a complaint seeking a declaration of a lien for furnishing labor and materials for the improvement of real estate.
On and prior to October 30, 1953, Wood furnished labor and materials for the improvement of a parcel of real estate allegedly owned by Myrtle B. Wilson, a single woman, which said real estate is also alleged to have been her homestead. A claim of lien was served upon Miss Wilson on December 27, 1953, but the complaint in the instant case was not filed until March 9, 1955, more than twelve months after the last item of materials was furnished and after the service of the claim of lien.
Appellee attached the complaint by motion to dismiss on the grounds that it failed to state a claim to support relief and further that it affirmatively appeared from the allegations of the complaint that the action had not been instituted within the period of limitations prescribed by F.S. § 84.21 and § 86.11, F.S.A. These statutes respectively require that an action to enforce a materialman's or laborer's lien shall be instituted within twelve months after the claim of lien is recorded or within twelve months of the performance of the work if notice of the lien has not been recorded. The Chancellor granted the motion to dismiss the complaint. From this order an appeal was taken.
Appellant contends for reversal on the proposition that Article X, Section 1, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., defining a homestead and homestead exemption provides that a homestead shall not be exempt from obligations 'for the erection or repair of improvements on the real estate exempted' and that inasmuch as he is merely seeking the declaration of a lien rather than the enforcement of a lien, he should not be bound by the time limitations prescribed by the mechanic's lien law. To support his position he cites cases dealing with separate property of married women as defined by Article XI of the Florida Constitution. Appellant reasons from these cases that since the Constitution requires specifically that property of a married woman 'be charged in equity' that the same rule applies to the alleged homestead of a single woman.
We cannot agree with appellant's process of reasoning. The two sections of the Constitution are separate and distinct and, insofar as the factual situation before us is concerned, have no elements of similarity. We have consistently held that absent special or peculiar equities justifying the imposition of an equitable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crane Co. v. Fine, 37748
...Prevatt Buildings, Inc., Fla.App.1st 1959, 116 So.2d 437, 438; and Dewing v. Davis, Fla.App.2d 1960, 117 So.2d 747. See also Wood v. Wilson, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 32, in which we noted that in the Absence of special or peculiar equities a suit to enforce a materialman's or mechanic's lien must......
-
Phelps v. T. O. Mahaffey, Inc.
...remedy provided by law, as was the case in Kimbrell v. Fink, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 96; Blanton v. Young, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 351; Wood v. Wilson, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 32; and Rood Company v. Luber, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 629. The court's determination that the plaintiff did not have a statutory lien ......
-
Emery v. International Glass & Mfg., Inc.
...155 Fla. 164, 19 So.2d 612 and Halifix Construction Co. v. Chastain Groves, Inc. (Fla.App.1966), 192 So.2d 15. Also, cf., Wood v. Wilson (Fla.1955), 84 So.2d 32 and Miami Highland Park, Inc. v. Leslie (Fla.App.1962), 142 So.2d 754.2 See, Minick v. Minick Drug Co. (1935), 120 Fla. 621, 163 S......
-
Hallmark Mfg., Inc. v. Lujack Const. Co., Inc., 79-478
...not allege lack of an adequate remedy at law, or special or peculiar equities justifying the imposition of an equitable lien; Wood v. Wilson, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 32; Crane Co. v. Fine, Fla.1969, 221 So.2d 145. There was no mention of a written contract which showed an intention to charge the......