FISHER LUMBER COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
v.
E. O. VERHINE, ET AL.; FISHER LUMBER COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, V. THE R. F. C. MORTGAGE COMPANY, A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ET AL.
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.
A materialman's lien is subordinate to a recorded mortgage when the materialman fails to file a notice of lien within the statutory period, even if the mortgagee had actual knowledge of the debt.
Fisher Lumber Company supplied materials to an owner building a house. The owner mortgaged the property to Mercantile National Bank, which was assigne…
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 Mechanic'S Lien Priority cases and more on FLexlaw
From March 18 to June 5, 1937, Fisher Lumber Company furnished building material direct to one Verhine, the owner, to build a house upon the property in question.
On June 4, 1937, Verhine executed a mortgage on the same property to Mercantile National Bank who subsequently assigned same to defendant, R. F. C. Mortgage Company. The mortgage was recorded on the date of June 7, 1937. Fisher Lumber Company never filed a notice of lien. On June 4th, 1938, Fisher Lumber Company filed suit in equity to perfect a first lien and foreclose same for its material. Thereafter R. F. C. Mortgage Company sued to foreclose its mortgage. From decrees favorable to R. F. C. Mortgage Company and adverse to Fisher Lumber Company they come here on appeal and are consolidated.
The only question is, which was the superior lien?
The lumber company insists that its lien is superior, upon authority of Hendry Lumber Co. v. Bryant, 138 Fla. 485, 189 So. 710. With this we do not agree. It is true in this case as there, the lumber company was dealing directly with the owner but in the Hendry Lumber Company case supra no question of priorities between creditors was involved.
So far as the owner was concerned, the lumber company’s lien was valid and enforceable for a period of one year from the date the last material was furnished. The lumber company failing to file notice of its lien within three months from the date when the last material was furnished, thereby permitted the mortgage lien to become superior. Uniform Mechanics Lien, Acts of 1935. This is true even though the *672mortgagee had actual knowledge of the unpaid bill for materials.
Finding no reversible error in either decree, both of same are affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nathman v. Chrycy, 107 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…ree months has run and no claim of lien is filed within the three months, and no suit to enforce the lien is- commenced within the three months. Sections 84.02 and 84.16, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., and Fisher Lumber Co. v. Verhine Lumber Co., 147 Fla. 670, 3 So. 2d 374. It is claimed that the lienors’ rights are superior to the rights of the Nathmans because their contract as Temco’s vendees was not of record at the time of the “time of the visible commencement of operations” section, § 84.20, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.,…
-
Hartstone Concrete Prods. Co., Inc. v. Abe Verkauf, 147 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…ecause the lienor is required, under the mechanics’ lien laws, to file a lien within three months after the last material is furnished to preserve the priority of his previously attached mechanic’s lien. In the case of Fisher Lumber Co. v. Verhine, 147 Fla. 670, 672, 3 So. 2d 374, 375, the Florida Supreme Court held that where materials were furnished and the owner mortgaged and premises to the mortgagee who recorded the mortgage three days later, the materialman, by failing to file notice of its lien with…1 / 2
-
Gray v. L. M. Penzi Tile Co., Inc., 107 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…ishing the last material or labor by them and after Gray had completed her purchase of the property and taken title, the decree will be reversed on the authority of §§ 84.14 and 84.16, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., and Fisher Lumber Co. v. Verhine Lumber Co., 147 Fla. 670, 3 So,2d 374. We find that Banner was not in privity with Temco but supplied material to Mathis, a plasterer who was a contractor with Temco. In view of this finding, and since Banner failed to establish that Mathis had not been paid in full by Tem…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hendry Lumber Co. v. Bryant, 138 Fla. 485 (Fla. 1939)