JEFFREY R. YUNIS AND MANCHESTER INSURANCE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, A/K/A MANCHESTER INSURANCE GROUP, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CALVIN GILLENWATER, SR., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Defendant-appellants appealed an interlocutory order denying their motion to dismiss a mechanic's lien foreclosure action. The court affirmed the denial, holding that at the motion to dismiss stage, the complaint's allegations of statutory compliance are sufficient and factual determination is reserved for trial.
The trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss. At the interlocutory appeal stage, it is sufficient that the complaint's allegations show compliance with the statute and contracts; actual factual compliance can only be determined by evidence at trial.
[1] A complaint alleging full compliance with statutory requirements for a mechanic's lien is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
[2] The sufficiency of compliance with statutory requirements for a mechanic's lien is a matter of evidence to be determined after the pleading stage.
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“This being an interlocutory appeal, it is only necessary that the allegations in the complaint show compliance with § 713.06(3) (d) (1) and the contracts.”
Establishes the legal standard applicable to interlocutory appeals of motion to dismiss orders—allegations of compliance suffice at the pleading stage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCalvin Gillenwater, Sr., Inc. contracted with Jeffrey R. Yunis to construct an office building on Yunis's property. After construction completion, the…
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 Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellants take this interlocutory appeal to review the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff-appellee, Calvin Gillenwater, Sr., Inc., entered into contracts with the defendant-appellant Jeffrey R. Yunis to construct an office building on property owned by the defendant Yunis. Subsequent to the completion of construction, the building and land were sold to the defendant-appellant Manchester Insurance and Indemnity Company. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for labor and materials. In response thereto, defendants filed identical motions to dismiss on the grounds of (1) plaintiff’s failure to comply with Fla.Stat. § 713.06(3) (d)(1), and (2) plaintiff’s failure to comply with the direct contracts and to allow defendants to comply with Fla.Stat. § 713.06(3)(d) (S). After hearing argument thereon, the trial court entered its order denying the motions to dismiss. Defendants appeal therefrom. We affirm.
Defendant-appellants’ motions to dismiss for failure to comply with § 713.06(3) (d)(1) and the provisions of the contracts were denied. This being an interlocutory appeal, it is only necessary that the allegations in the complaint show compliance with § 713.06(3) (d) (1) and the contracts. See 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 300 (1963). The complaint in the case sub ju-dice specifically alleges full compliance therewith and, therefore, we find no error in the denial of the motions to dismiss. Whether plaintiff has complied fully with the statute and the provisions of the contracts can only be determined by the evidence.
Accordingly, the ordered herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.