JAQUELINE CRISWELL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RUTH HEIDMANN, APPELLANT,
v.
JM CUSTOM WOODWORKING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, G.B. HEIDMANN, JR., RUTH HEIDMANN, AND ATLANTIC CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ATLANTIC CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND THE ESTATE OF GEORGE B. HEIDMANN, JR., THE GEORGE B. HEIDMANN JR. TRUST, AND RUTH HEIDMANN, 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.
The personal representative of a homeowner's estate appealed a judgment against the estate in a construction dispute with a general contractor over a home reconstruction project. The court affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the portion awarding the general contractor payment for interior designer services that were not part of the general contractor's agreement and thus not lienable.
The court reversed the portion of the judgment awarding $16,937 for interior designer invoices, holding that costs for services not required by the direct contract are not lienable, and the general contractor's agreement did not encompass interior design services.
[1] Costs associated with labor, material, or services not required by a direct contract are not lienable.
[2] A general contractor's agreement does not encompass services provided by a third party under a separate contract unless specifically approved by the owner.
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“any costs associated with labor, material, or services that are not required by the direct contract are not lienable”
Establishes the legal principle that determines whether interior designer costs could be included in the general contractor's lien
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe owner (mother) entered into an agreement with a general contractor for home reconstruction. When the owner missed payments, the general contractor…
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 Fraudulent Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
The personal representative of her mother’s estate (“owner”) appeals an adverse final judgment in litigation over the reconstruction of her parents’ home. The mother entered into an agreement with the general contractor for the reconstruction, but neither parent lived to see the completion of the project. Multiple issues have been raised. We find merit in only one involving the interior designer’s invoices. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
A dispute arose after the owner missed payments to the general contractor. The owner indicated there were issues with change orders. The general contractor then provided written notification of a claim and recorded a claim of lien against the property.
After one of the sub-contractors filed suit against the general contractor and owner for nonpayment, the general contractor filed a cross-claim against the owner for breach of contract and foreclosure of its lien. The owner then filed a counter/cross-claim against the general contractor for breach of contract and fraudulent lien. Both the general contractor and owner later moved for involuntary dismissal, which the trial court denied. The case was tried non-jury, resulting in a judgment against the owner.
One change order involved services by the interior designer. The general contractor included the interior designer’s bill in its invoice and ultimately in its lien for unpaid services. However, any costs associated with labor, material, or services that are not required by the direct contract are not lienable. Morris and Esher, Inc. v. Olympia Enters., Inc., 200 So.2d 579, 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Here, the general contractor’s agreement did not include the interior designer’s services. The interior designer had a separate contract with the mother.
At oral argument, the general contractor’s counsel agreed that the inclusion of the interior designer’s services in the lien was improper because the general contractor’s agreement did not encompass interior design services, and the services were not specifically approved by the owner as required by the contract. We therefore reverse the judgment to the extent of $16,937 awarded for the interior designer’s outstanding invoices. We affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for correction of the final judgment.
Damoorgian and Conner, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Morris & Esher, Inc. v. Olympia Enters., Inc., 200 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)