EDD HELMS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BARNETT BANK OF SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A., APPELLEE
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.
An electrical subcontractor appealed a dismissal of its claim for an equitable lien against a construction lender's undisbursed loan proceeds. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the subcontractor had adequate legal remedies (against the surety, owner, and contractor) and failed to allege facts supporting an equitable lien.
The subcontractor cannot maintain an equitable lien claim where it has pled adequate legal remedies at law against the surety and other parties, and where the complaint fails to allege ultimate facts establishing special equities such as lender misconduct, affirmative deception, or material misrepresentation.
[1] An action in equity for an equitable lien is unavailable when an adequate remedy at law exists.
[2] A subcontractor cannot maintain an action in equity for an equitable lien if it has pleaded adequate legal remedies against other parties.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Having pleaded adequate legal remedies, the subcontractor cannot alternatively maintain an action in equity.”
Establishes the primary holding that adequate legal remedies preclude equitable relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn electrical subcontractor performed work on a construction project financed by a construction lender. The subcontractor sought to impose an equitabl…
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 Affirmative Deception cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, the electrical subcontractor challenges a final order of dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action against the construction lender. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order. Although the subcontractor sought to impose an equitable lien against undis-bursed construction loan proceeds, its amended complaint shows the existence of an adequate remedy at law. Other counts in the subcontractor’s pleadings state a cause of action against the surety on the performance bond and against the owner and contractor in both contract and quasi-contract. Having pleaded adequate legal remedies, the subcontractor cannot alternatively maintain an action in equity. See Hallmark Mfg. Inc., v. Lujack Const. Co., Inc., 372 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (no cause of action for equitable lien exists where complaint alleged no more than breach of contract, no grounds on which to base equitable lien, and plaintiff has adequate remedy at law); Cohen v. Lunsford, 362 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (where subcontractor afforded adequate remedy at law and record reflects no special equities, subcontractor’s claim of equitable lien must fail); cf. Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1969) (record showed special equities to support an equitable lien where “the plaintiff had no cause of action against the surety on the performance bond nor against the owner-contractor joint ventur-ers on either a quasi-contractual or contractual basis”).
Additionally, the pleadings failed to set forth ultimate facts sufficient to establish a special equity. The requisite allegations of lender misconduct, affirmative deception, or material misrepresentation were not made. Chase Manhattan Bank v. S/D Enters., Inc., 353 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); J.G. Plumbing Svc., Inc. v. Coastal Mtg. Co., 329 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 339 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1976). Finally, there was no allegation that the construction project was fully completed. Unjust enrichment cannot be established by alleging merely “substantial completion.” See J.G. Plumbing Svc., Inc., 329 So. 2d at 395 (no unjust enrichment where default occurs prior to completion of construction).
The trial court’s order of dismissal with prejudice is, accordingly,
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salinas v. Mobarak, 219 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (stating that imposition of constructive trust requires evidence of fiduciary relationship or evidence that defendant took unconscionable advantage of plaintiff); Edd Helms Elec. Contracting, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 531 So. 2d 238, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA. 1988) (holding that equitable lien unavailable when contract remedies are adequate). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1969)
- J. G. Plumbing Serv., Inc. v. Coastal Mortg. Co., 329 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Wood v. Winters Gov't Sec. Corp., 372 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. S/D Enters., Inc., 353 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Cohen v. Lunsford, 362 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)