MID-FLORIDA POOLS AND REPAIRS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ROYCE H. COE, ET UX., ET AL., 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.
Mid-Florida Pools sued to foreclose a mechanic's lien on the Coes' property after the contractor they paid failed to compensate Mid-Florida for labor and materials. The trial court discharged the lien and awarded the Coes attorney's fees based on estoppel, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Mid-Florida's president's misrepresentations to the property owners barred enforcement of the lien.
Mid-Florida is estopped from foreclosing its mechanic's lien on the Coes' property because the president's representation that it was all right for the owners to settle with the contractor was a material misrepresentation, the Coes relied on it, and they changed their position to their detriment by paying the contractor directly.
[1] A subcontractor may be estopped from foreclosing a mechanic's lien when its representative makes a representation that the owner can settle directly with the contractor,…
[2] Estoppel requires a representation of a material fact contrary to the later asserted state of affairs, reliance on the representation, and a change in position to one's d…
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“In order to apply the defense of estoppel, a representation of a material fact must have been made contrary to the state of affairs later asserted by the party making the representation. The party seeking estoppel must have relied on the representation and changed his position to his detriment.”
Establishes the three-part test for estoppel that the court applied to bar enforcement of the lien.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMid-Florida, a subcontractor, provided labor and materials for the Coes' swimming pool construction and provided notice of lien to the owners. When Ro…
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 Reliance On Representations cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Judge.
Mid-Florida Pools and Repairs, Inc. unsuccessfully sued Royce H. Coe and Freda Coe to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on the Coes’ property. The final judgment entered after a nonjury trial discharged Mid-Florida’s claim of lien and awarded the Coes costs and attorney’s fees. We affirm.
Mid-Florida, a subcontractor, provided labor and materials for the construction of the Coes’ swimming pool. After receiving a notice to owner from Mid-Florida, Royce Coe spoke to Mid-Florida’s president, Fred Haggerstrom. Coe told Haggerstrom that he was planning to settle with the contractor and asked what he should do in light of the notice. Haggerstrom assured Coe that there was no problem and that the contractor was always good for his money. The Coes settled with the contractor who admitted at trial that he provided them with a false contractor’s final affidavit and never paid Mid-Florida the $3,623.80 it was owed. Haggerstrom conceded that he knew the contractor had financial problems, but that he did not tell the Coes because he tried to protect customers from knowledge that the person building their pool had money problems.
In order to apply the defense of estoppel, a representation of a material fact must have been made contrary to the state of affairs later asserted by the party making the representation. The party seeking estoppel must have relied on the representation and changed his position to his detriment. Phoenix Insurance Company v. McQueen, 286 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Estoppel has been applied to bar enforcement of liens. See Lehman v. Snyder, 84 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1955); Continental Casualty Company v. Associated Plastics, Inc., 347 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Haggerstrom’s conversation with Coe provides a basis for the trial court’s decision. Haggerstrom’s statement that it was all right for the owners to settle with the contractor was a representation that there was no reason to settle directly with Mid-Florida in spite of the statutory mechanic’s lien procedures to protect subcontractors. Mid-Florida now asserts that it was not all right. However, the Coes changed their position in reliance on Haggerstrom’s representation by paying the contractor directly. Mid-Florida is now estopped from foreclosure of the lien on the Coes’ property and from forcing them to pay twice for the construction of their swimming pool.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. G & S Bldg. Supply, Inc., 603 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…l court abused its discretion by factually finding no waiver. Additionally, we find no error in the trial court’s failure to find that Young had relied to his detriment so that an estoppel would apply. See Mid-Florida Pools & Repairs, Inc. v. Coe, 530 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). AFFIRMED. WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Cont'l Cas. Co. & Saul J. Morgan Enters., Inc. v. Associated Plastics, Inc., 347 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Lehman v. Snyder, 84 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1955)
- The Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Cheri Ann McQUEEN, 286 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)