BROWARD ATLANTIC PLUMBING CO., D/B/A ATLANTIC PLUMBING CO., APPELLANT,
v.
R.L.P., INC., SIMON KONOVER, ROBERT L. PATRON AND MARVIN M. PATRON, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Atlantic Plumbing appealed a judgment denying foreclosure of its mechanic's lien against individual property owners, arguing it had established privity with the owners despite failing to serve notice as required by statute. The court reversed, holding that privity exists when the owners are identical to the principals in the contracting corporation, eliminating the notice requirement.
The court held that privity is established and notice to owner is not required where there is identity of owner and contractor—that is, where the property owners are the same persons who are the principals in the contracting corporation. Atlantic therefore demonstrated privity with the owners, eliminating the notice requirement.
[1] Privity between a subcontractor and property owners is established when the owners are the principals of the contracting corporation.
[2] A notice to owner is not required under Florida Statutes Section 713.06(2)(a) when privity exists between the subcontractor and the property owners.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the purpose of the notice to owner requirement relevant to those not in privity with the owner is 'to protect an owner from the possibility of paying over to his contractor sums which ought to go to a subcontractor who remains unpaid.'”
Establishes the statutory purpose of the notice requirement and rationale for when it may be excused based on privity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAtlantic Plumbing contracted with R.L.P., Inc. to supply and install plumbing fixtures in Patron Village. The sole stockholders, officers, and directo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice To Owner Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
Atlantic Plumbing appeals from a final judgment denying foreclosure of its mechanic’s lien. Although the court entered a money judgment for Atlantic against the corporate defendant, it refused to grant a mechanic’s lien or to enter a judgment against the individual defendants. Its ruling was based on the finding that Atlantic had failed to serve a notice to owner as required by Section 713.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), and had failed to establish privity between the plaintiff/subcontractor and the defendant/owners. We reverse on the issue of privity.
Atlantic Plumbing entered into a contract with R.L.P., Inc., to supply and install plumbing fixtures in a real estate project, Patron Village. The sole stockholders, officers and directors of R.L.P., Inc., were the owners of Patron Village — Simon Konover, Robert L. Patron and Marvin M. Patron. Since R.L.P. did not possess a general contractor’s license, it hired Deyo Construction Company as the official contractor. Deyo, however, did not actively participate in construction and simply visited the site about once a month. In contrast, Robert Patron, president of R.L.P. and co-owner of Patron Village, was on the job daily acting as the general contractor. Atlantic Plumbing substantially completed its contract, leaving only the installation of 24 dishwashers which Atlantic claims were not timely brought to the job site by R.L.P. It then demanded payment and, when Robert Patron refused, Atlantic filed a claim of lien followed by a suit to foreclose its mechanic’s lien and recover a money judgment against R.L.P. and the individual owners. Robert and Marvin Patron and Simon Konover raised an affirmative defense of failure to give notice to owner under Section 713.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975).
After a non-jury trial, the court entered final judgment against R.L.P., Inc. for the amount claimed less a set off for work not completed. It refused, however, to foreclose the mechanic’s lien on the owners’ property or to enter judgment against the individual defendant/owners, finding that Atlantic had failed to serve the notice to owner which section 713.06(2)(a) requires materialmen and laborers not in privity with the owner to serve, or to establish such privity between the plaintiff/subcontractor and the individual defendant/owners as would eliminate the notice requirement.
We find Boux v. East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc., 218 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), to be controlling. There, the court emphasized that the purpose of the notice to owner requirement relevant to those not in privity with the owner is “to protect an owner from the possibility of paying over to his contractor sums which ought to go to a subcontractor who remains unpaid.” It determined that such purpose is fulfilled, and privity is shown, where there is identity of owner and contractor. In such a situation, filing of the notice is not required.
It is undisputed that the three owners in the instant case were also the principals in the contracting corporation. Adopting the reasoning in Boux v. East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc., supra, we conclude that Atlantic has demonstrated its privity with the owners and, consequently, notice to owner was not required.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and Remanded.
MOORE, J., concurs.
BERANEK, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Buck, 594 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1992)…a.Stat. (1987). The purpose of serving notice to an owner is “ ‘to protect an owner from the possibility of paying over to his contractor sums which ought to go to a subcontractor who remains unpaid.’ ” Broward Atlantic Plumbing Co. v. R.L.P., Inc., 402 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (quoting Boux v. East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc., 218 So. 2d 202, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)). In other words, as the trial court recognized, the notice requirement is just that, a notice to the owner that those not in privit…1 / 2
-
Symons Corp. v. Tartan-Lavers Delray Beach, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ng that Tartan-Laver had constructive knowledge of the notice to owner. Symons relies upon two cases for this position: Boux v. East Hills-borough Apartments, Inc., 218 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) and Broward Atlantic Plumbing Co. v. R.L.P., Inc., 402 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Both cases, however, are inapposite. They involve subcontractors who were deemed to be in privity with the owners and, therefore, not subject to the notice to owner requirement. See § 713.05, Fla.Stat. (1983). Furthermore, Symon…1 / 2
-
Pappalardo Constr. Co. & the Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Buck, 568 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…nds that only knowledge is required where there is common identity between the owner and general or subcontractor with which the contract was entered. The trial court agreed with appellee, as do we. In Broward Atlantic Plumbing Co. v. R.L.P., Inc., 402 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), this court adopted the reasoning of the second district made in Boux v. East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc., 218 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), in concluding there was privity between the claimant and the owners, who were also th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boux v. E. Hillsborough Apts., Inc., 218 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)