130 So. 3d 238
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Premier Finishes, Inc. (doing business as PFI Construction) and its president Peter Torres contracted in 2011 with the Soulos Family Trust to build a house; work completed Feb 2012.
- Premier recorded a claim of lien (Apr 2012) and a notice of lis pendens, then sued to foreclose the lien and for breach of contract after alleged wrongful termination and nonpayment.
- Defendant Maggirias moved to dismiss/count I and to discharge the lien and lis pendens, arguing the contract named “PFI Construction” (a fictitious name) while the lien was filed in the name Premier Finishes, so Premier was not the contractor/lienor under chapter 713.
- The trial court granted dismissal of the lien foreclosure count without prejudice and discharged the lien and lis pendens, finding no proven contract by Premier Finishes.
- Petitioners sought certiorari; the appellate court found the trial court erred by discharging the lien and lis pendens without determining whether the name discrepancy adversely affected the owner and quashed the discharge in part, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a contract signed under a fictitious name makes Premier Finishes the actual contractor and proper lienor | Premier: PFI Construction is a fictitious name used by Premier Finishes; therefore Premier is the real party to the contract and may enforce the lien | Maggirias: The contract names PFI Construction (nonentity); Premier Finishes is not party to the contract so cannot be lienor | Held: A contract under a fictitious name is enforceable by the real party; if Premier used the fictitious name it is the contractor and may have a lien |
| Whether a claim of lien bearing a mistaken/variant lienor name must be discharged when amendment time has passed | Premier: The name discrepancy did not prejudice owner; lien should not be discharged absent a showing of adverse effect | Maggirias: Strict compliance required; name error invalidates lien | Held: Trial court must determine whether the owner was adversely affected; absent prejudice the lien need not be defeated under §713.08(4)(a) |
| Whether the trial court properly discharged lien and lis pendens while allowing breach of contract to proceed | Premier: Inconsistent—permitting contract claim but discharging lien based on same contract is improper | Maggirias: Discharge appropriate because Premier failed to prove it was party to contract | Held: Discharging lien without resolving adverse-effect issue departed from essential requirements of law; certiorari relief warranted |
| Whether certiorari relief was appropriate to quash the discharge | Premier: Discharge caused irreparable prejudice because amendment window expired and remedy lost on appeal | Maggirias: Not addressed in depth | Held: Certiorari granted; order quashed in part because discharge inflicted material injury not remedied on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Viking Cmtys. Corp. v. Peeler Constr. Co., 367 So.2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (contract is essential to a contractor’s lien)
- Worm World, Inc. v. Ironwood Prods., Inc., 917 So.2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (contract under fictitious name binds the real party)
- Trintec Constr., Inc. v. Countryside Vill. Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 992 So.2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (discharging lien when contractor entitled to proceed departs from essential requirements)
- Stunkel v. Gazebo Landscaping Design, Inc., 660 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1995) (trial court must determine whether faulty lien adversely affected owner)
- Johnson & Bailey Architects P.C. v. Se. Brake Corp., 517 So.2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (lien not defeated for omissions absent owner prejudice)
- Mid-State Contractors, Inc. v. Halo Dev. Corp., 342 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (substantial compliance suffices if no prejudice shown)
- Royal Ambassador Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. E. Coast Supply Corp., 495 So.2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (trial court must explore factual adverse-effect issue by pleading and proof)
- Phoenix Walls, Inc. v. Liberty Pasadena, LLC, 980 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (certiorari proper to challenge discharge of lis pendens)
- Loidl v. I & E Grp., Inc., 927 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (certiorari available to review lis pendens discharge)