lienriGhtSContinGentonPermanentBeneFittoProPerty
Construction law Section Co-Chairs: AlexSarsfield – Adams & ReeseLLP & MartiniqueSmith – CarltonFields
Becausethematerialsdid notprovideapermanent benefit, thecourtruledFort dallaswasnotentitleda lienontheproperty.
Florida’ s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently affirmed in part and reversed in part a final judgment in a construction lien dispute, holding that while a supplier qualified as a“ materialman,” it was not entitled to record a lien where the materials were never delivered and therefore provided no permanent benefit to the property. 1
JM Properties arose from a construction project where Fort Dallas Truss Company, LLC(“ Fort Dallas”) was hired to design, manufacture, and deliver trusses for the project. 2 Under the contract, JM Properties of W. Palm Beach, Inc.(“ JM Properties”) was required to pay fifty percent of the contract price upon completion of the shop drawings. 3 The trial court found that
JM Properties was advised the shop drawings had been completed and that payment was due. 4 However, JM Properties did not make the payment and avoided contact with Fort Dallas. 5
Fort Dallas recorded a lien against the property and filed suit asserting claims for breach contract and foreclosure of the lien. 6 JM
Continuedonpage21
2 0 M A y- J U N E 2 0 2 6 | H C B A L A W y E R