COASTAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, LLC

v.

ABRAHAM A. CALIXTE,

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

COASTAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS, LLC, Appellant,

V.

ABRAHAM CALIXTE and DOROTHY DROUILLARD a/k/a DOROTHY CALIXTE, Appellees.

Nos. 4D2025-2593 and 4D2025-3611

[November 4, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 562023CA002443AXXXHC and 562023CA002748AXXXHC.

Lawrence S. Klitzman of Klitzman Law Group, PLLC, Sunrise, Robert J. Powell, Matthew M. Couch, and Ethan C. Gibson of Moorhead Law Group, Pensacola, for appellant.

Abraham Calixte, Port St. Lucie, pro se.

Dorothy Drouillard a/k/a Dorothy Calixte, Port St. Lucie, pro se.

No brief filed for appellees.

LOTT, J.

Coastal Building Contractors, LLC (“Coastal”), a subcontractor, tried to record a lien after a payment dispute arose with the Calixtes for work which Coastal had performed on their home.

But Coastal made one mistake—a mistake that was consequential for this appeal.

Coastal completed its work by December 1, 2022. But its recorded notice of lien erroneously stated that the date of completion was October 21,2022. The notice, filed on February 16, 2023, needed to be filed within 90 days of completion of the work, so it appeared on its face untimely, even though it was actually timely.

The trial court dismissed Coastal's claim of lien as untimely. The trial court reasoned that because the notice was not timely amended to reflect the correct completion date, the notice remained untimely on its face, invalidating the claim of lien.

But that was not the correct inquiry, for which reversal is required. The notice was timely because it was recorded within 90 days of the actual completion of the work—the notice just contained an erroneous description of the completion date. On remand, the trial court should assess whether that error prejudiced the homeowners. If no prejudice occurred, then the error falls within the statutory safe harbors and the lien is valid.

Background

The Calixtes hired a general contractor, Port St. Lucie Properties, Inc. (“PSL”), to construct a single-family residence. PSL subcontracted with Coastal to perform masonry, carpentry, and slab work. The project was delayed because required drywall materials were unavailable, and the remaining work was completed on or about December 1, 2022.1

Coastal recorded its original claim of lien on February 16, 2023. The recorded document incorrectly listed the completion date as October 21, 2022. On September 28, 2023 and October 24, 2023, Coastal recorded an Amended Claim of Lien and Second Amended Claim of Lien, respectively, to reflect a December 20, 2022 completion date.

The Calixtes initiated an action for slander of title and a declaratory judgment to invalidate the lien, later depositing cash security to secure the Second Amended Claim of Lien. Coastal filed a consolidated foreclosure action objecting to the cash deposit. The trial court entered summary judgment for the Calixtes, finding that because the original lien was untimely, the amendments were invalid, and the Calixtes suffered legal prejudice. The trial court released the cash security deposit and awarded the Calixtes $80,000 in attorney's fees.

Analysis

“We review de novo an order granting summary judgment.” Kincaid v. Walmart, Inc., 430 So. 3d 141, 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026) (setting out standard for summary judgment).

Section 713.08, Florida Statutes (2022), sets out the requirements for a contractor to make a claim of lien for work performed.

Among other things, the claim of lien must state “[t]he time when the first and the last item of labor or service or materials was furnished." Id. § 713.08(1)(f).

Section 713.08 provides that “[t]he claim of lien may be recorded at any time during the progress of the work or thereafter but not later than 90 days after the final furnishing of the labor or services or materials by the lienor.” § 713.08(5). Further, “[a]ny claim of lien recorded as provided in this part may be amended at any time during the period allowed for recording such claim of lien,” that is, 90 days after the final furnishing. § 713.08(4)(b).

The statute contains two “safe harbor” provisions for errors in the notice. First, “the negligent inclusion or omission of any information in the claim of lien which has not prejudiced the owner does not constitute a default that operates to defeat an otherwise valid lien.” § 713.08(3). Second, "[t]he omission of any of the foregoing details or errors in such claim of lien shall not, within the discretion of the trial court, prevent the enforcement of such lien as against one who has not been adversely affected by such omission or error.”§ 713.08(4)(a).

The trial court reasoned that the lien was untimely filed because, on its face, the lien stated that the final furnishing was on October 21, 2022. The court further reasoned that the attempted amendment was invalid because it was filed more than 90 days after the corrected completion date of December 20, 2022. The court concluded the lien was facially untimely and remained so, rendering it unenforceable. The court alternatively found that the Calixtes were prejudiced because the lien impaired their property rights.

The trial court was, to be sure, correct in finding that Coastal's attempts to amend the lien months down the road were improper and thus those amended notices are nullities. See § 713.08(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“Any claim of lien recorded as provided in this part may be amended at any time during the period allowed for recording such claim of lien[.] [i.e., 90 days from final furnishing].”).

But the trial court erred in finding that the erroneous lien, left unamended, was fatally deficient and incurable. Even though error caused the lien to appear untimely, the question of timeliness turns on whether the lien was, in fact, untimely. And it is undisputed that the lien was not untimely, because the final work was performed within 90 days of the date of recording.²

Although the lien notice included erroneous information (the wrong date) and excluded correct information (the right date), section 713.08 contains two safe-harbor provisions that might salvage the claim from such mistakes. First, "the negligent inclusion or omission of any information in the claim of lien which has not prejudiced the owner does not constitute a default that operates to defeat an otherwise valid lien.”§ 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. (2022). And second, “errors in such claim of lien shall not, within the discretion of the trial court, prevent the enforcement of such lien as against one who has not been adversely affected by such omission or error.”§ 713.08(4)(a).

The question for the trial court, then, is whether the error, that is, the wrong date recited in the notice, “prejudiced the owner” or otherwise "adversely affected” the Calixtes. §§ 713.08(3), (4)(a), Fla. Stat (2022).

The trial court did not reach that question. The court instead held that the failure to cure the error through amendment ended the inquiry. But that ignored the safe harbor provisions.

The trial court alternatively held that the error prejudiced the Calixtes by causing an otherwise invalid lien on their property to be valid and thus encumber their property. But that asked the wrong question of “what” prejudiced the Calixtes. Of course the lien prejudiced the Calixtes: that's the point of a lien.

The safe harbor analysis instead must ask whether the error prejudiced the owner. In a counterfactual world where no error occurred and the correct information was included, would things have played out differently for the Calixtes? For example, did the error prevent them from

understanding the claim and defending their rights with respect to it? Did they in good faith rely to their detriment on the erroneous information, or did they know the information was wrong, cross their fingers, and hope they had drawn bank error in their favor?

Along such lines, in McCown v. Pierce Construction, Inc., 552 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), we reversed a dismissal where the claim of lien failed to provide a proper description of the subject property. We noted that the "record reveals nothing to indicate that Pierce would have been exposed to any prejudice had the trial court followed that course” and that prejudice appeared absent where “[i]t is unlikely that [lienee] was unable to identify the subject property; it defended the action from the start.” Id. Accord Johnson & Bailey Architects P.C. v. Se. Brake Corp., 517 So. 2d 776, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“We note also that as the lien did reference the contract from which it arose, it is unlikely that Southeast was unable to identify the subject property.”); Premier Finishes, Inc. v. Maggirias, 130 So. 3d 238, 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (prejudice unlikely shown where, even with errors, “it is unlikely that Mr. Maggirias would be unable to deduce the relationship between Premier Finishes and PFI Construction”).

The trial court erred in distinguishing our decision in O'Brian Associates of Orlando, Inc. v. Tully, 184 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) that case is materially similar. In O'Brian, which concerned a substantively similar statute (then section 84.041), the contractor filed a claim of lien that was facially untimely. Id. at 204. Then the contractor sought to amend its claim of lien to show that the wrong date had been listed for the furnishing of materials and that the lien was in fact timely recorded. Id. We held that the lien could not be amended because the window for amending the claim had passed. Id. (“The amended claim of lien was filed long after ninety days from the final furnishing of the materials by O'Brian so the amendment could not be permitted under the provisions of that portion of the statute.”). However, we continued:

Having determined that the claim of lien may not be amended, the question remaining is whether the lien may be enforced under the theory that the date set forth in the claim of lien on which the first materials were supplied was, in fact, erroneous and that the materials were, in fact, supplied within forty-five days. Section 84.081(4)(a) provides that the omission of any of the details or errors in a claim of lien shall not, within the discretion of the trial court, prevent the enforcement of such lien as against one who has not been adversely affected by such omission or error. We feel that neither party has shown an absence of a material issue of fact on the issue of whether or not the owners have not been adversely affected by the alleged error in the claim of lien. The statements contained in the proof submitted in support of summary judgment by each party on this issue are conclusions and not facts admissible as evidence and they are, therefore, insufficient to serve as a basis for summary decree. After full evidentiary hearing, the trial court will be in a position to exercise its discretion in determining whether or not the error in the claim of lien should prevent the enforcement of the lien. To permit enforcement the court must determine that the owners have not been adversely affected by the error.

Id. at 204–05 (cleaned up).

So too, here. Accord McCown, 552 So. 2d at 941 (where claim was defective for failure to identify property, “the trial court should have permitted McCown to rely on the original claim of lien which was timely recorded” and assessed whether lienee suffered prejudice from omission); Royal Ambassador Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. E. Coast Supply Corp., 495 So. 2d 932, 934–35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“While the adjudication against the entire property is overbroad and contrary to statute, unless a unit owner can demonstrate he was prejudiced by the overly broad description of the property liened, the lien should be effective against the respective units according to their proportionate shares of the common expenses.”); Sam Rodgers Props., Inc. v. Chmura, 61 So. 3d 432, 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“Even assuming that the trial court was correct in rejecting the amended claim of lien as untimely filed or that it was for work that was done for the wrong purpose, the trial court erred in determining that the amended claim of lien rendered the initial claim of lien unenforceable.”).

On remand, the trial court should consider whether the error prejudiced the owners, such that the error did or did not fall within section 713.08's safe harbor provisions.

We leave this determination to the trial court's discretion. And we leave all other matters, including all issues pertaining to fees, for the trial court to consider on remand in light of this opinion. Cf. McCown, 552 So. 2d at 941 (“Further proceedings will determine the prevailing party entitled to fees and costs . . . .").

Reversed and remanded.

LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.