THE BARED AND COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LANDIS & GYR POWERS, INC., 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.
This appeal concerns whether Florida Statute section 255.071(4), enacted to provide remedies for subcontractors on government projects to recover unpaid amounts, applies retroactively to contracts entered into before the statute's effective date. The court held that the statute applies retroactively as a remedial statute furthering existing contractual rights.
The statute applies retroactively because it is a remedial statute that operates in furtherance of remedies or confirmation of rights already existing. The court also rejected the appellant's claim that the statute's procedural provisions are invalid as conflicting with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
[1] A remedial statute providing remedies for the enforcement of an existing right is applicable to an action arising from a contract entered into before its effective date.
[2] Remedial statutes should be applied retroactively to serve their intended purposes.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“remedial statutes should be applied retroactively to serve their intended purposes”
Establishes the foundational principle that remedial statutes like section 255.071(4) apply retroactively.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBared and Company, Inc., a subcontractor on a government job, sought to enforce its right to recover money already paid for its services from the cont…
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 Subcontractor Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We agree with the trial court that section 255.071(4), Florida Statutes (1993), which makes the remedies of accounting, injunction, and attachment1 available for the enforcement of an existing right of a subcontractor on a government job to recover money already paid for its services from the contractor, is applicable to an action arising from a contract entered into before its effective date. City of Orlando v. Desjardins, 493 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla.1986) (remedial statutes should be applied retroactively to serve their intended purposes); City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1961) (remedial statutes only operate in furtherance of remedies or confirmation of rights already existing); Ginsberg v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So. 2d 490, 497 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1994) (Florida Statute section 697.07, providing for simplified procedure to enforce existing rights to assignment of rents in foreclosure cases is remedial and thus retroactive); Nassau Square Assocs. v. Insurance Comm’r, 579 So. 2d 259, 260-61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (same). See Escambia County v. Blount Constr. Co., 66 Fla. 129, 62 So. 650 (1913) (accounting available as remedy to enforce contract rights); Steen v. Ross, Keen & Co., 22 Fla. 480 (1886) (attachment is remedy); 29 Fla.Jur.2d Injunctions § 10 (1981) (injunction is remedy). We also reject the appellant’s claim that the procedural provisions of the statute are invalidly in conflict with any rule of civil procedure. Compare Haven Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2d 730, 732-33 (Fla.1991).
Affirmed.
. Section 255.071, Florida Statutes (1993), provides:
(1) Any person, firm, or corporation who receives a payment from the state or any county, city, or political subdivision of the state, or other public authority, for the construction of a public building, for the prosecution and completion of a public work, or for repairs upon a public building or public work shall pay, in accordance with the contract terms, the undisputed contract obligations for labor, services, or material provided on account of such improvements.
(2) The failure to pay any undisputed obligations for such labor, services, or materials within 30 days after the date the labor, services, or materials were furnished and payment for such labor, services, or materials became due, or within 30 days after the date payment for such labor, services, or materials is received, whichever last occurs, shall entitle any person providing such labor, services, or materials to the procedures specified in subsection (3) and the remedies provided in subsection (4).
(3) Any person providing labor, services, or materials for the construction of a public building, for the prosecution and completion of a public work, or for repairs upon a public building or public work improvements to real property may file a verified complaint....
**
(4)After service of the complaint, the court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the complaint, upon not less than 15 days' written notice. The person providing labor, services, or materials is entitled to the following remedies to the extent of the undisputed amount due for labor or services performed or materials supplied, and upon proof of each allegation in the complaint:
(a) An accounting of the use of any such payment from the person who received such payment.
(b) A temporary injunction against the person who received the payment, subject to the bond requirements specified in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
(c) Prejudgment attachment against the person who received the payment, in accordance with each of the requirements of chapter 76.
(d) Such other legal or equitable remedies as may be appropriate in accordance with the requirements of the law. [e.s.]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Morton L. Ginsberg & MLG Props., Inc. v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- City OF Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1961)
- State v. Vamper, 579 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1991)
- Haven Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1991)
- City OF Orlando v. Desjardins, 493 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 1986)
- Cnty. of Escambia v. The Blount Constr. Co., 66 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1913)
- Steen v. Ross, 22 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1886)
- Nassau Square Assocs., Ltd. v. Ins. Comm'r OF the State OF Cal., 579 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)