Trump Endeavor 12, LLC v. Fernich, Inc., Etc.
216 So. 3d 704
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Paint Spot (material supplier) timely served a Notice to Owner (NTO) after supplying paint for renovations at Trump National Doral Miami; the NTO named contractor T&G but the Lodge Project’s actual general contractor was Straticon.
- Paint Spot received the wrong Notice of Commencement (NOC) from Trump’s Director of Construction and used it to prepare the NTO; Straticon later discovered the error and emailed Paint Spot on November 21, 2013.
- Paint Spot did not correct or re-serve the NTO to Straticon, but Straticon received, reviewed, and had actual knowledge of the NTO within the 45-day statutory period.
- Paint Spot delivered materials through September 2014; unpaid materials worth $32,535.87 remained and were used to finish work, but Paint Spot was not paid.
- Trial court found Paint Spot substantially complied with § 713.06(2), Straticon and Trump had actual knowledge, Trump was estopped from invalidating the NTO, and entered foreclosure and attorney’s-fee judgments for Paint Spot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trump) | Defendant's Argument (Paint Spot) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of NTO given wrong contractor listed | NTO must strictly comply with § 713.06(2)(a); naming wrong contractor invalidates lien | Substantial compliance and actual notice to contractor suffice to enforce lien | Court held NTO substantially complied; lien valid because Straticon/Trump were not adversely affected |
| Timeliness and service requirements under § 713.06(2)(a) | Paint Spot failed to serve Straticon within 45 days, so strict time/service compliance lacking | Paint Spot timely served owner within 45 days; Straticon actually received NTO within period, satisfying statute | Court: strict compliance required only for time; time was met; actual receipt by Straticon = substantial compliance with service requirement |
| Detrimental reliance / estoppel | Owner argues Paint Spot had notice of defect before deadline, so no detrimental reliance; equitable relief unavailable | Paint Spot argues owner caused initial error and should be estopped from attacking NTO | Court: detrimental-reliance doctrine inapplicable because Paint Spot was on notice of defect before deadline and failed to correct it; nonetheless estoppel not necessary because substantial compliance sufficed |
| Attorney’s fees under § 713.29 | Fees contingent on lien enforcement; challenge only if lien reversed | Paint Spot seeks fees following successful foreclosure | Court affirmed award of attorney’s fees along with foreclosure judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- James P. Driscoll, Inc. v. Gould, 521 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (standard for reviewing factual findings)
- Stock Bldg. Supply of Fla., Inc. v. Soares Da Costa Constr., 76 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (construction-lien law interpretation)
- WMS Constr., Inc. v. Palm Springs Mile Assoc., Ltd., 762 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (purpose and construction of mechanics’ lien law)
- Roof Structures, Inc. v. Picou, 544 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (detrimental reliance/substantial compliance recognized where owner’s omissions caused reliance)
- Suchman v. Nat’l Hauling, Inc., 549 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (actual notice can satisfy statutory requirements)
- Symons Corp. v. Tartan-Lavers Delray Beach, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (honest mistake in notice does not vitiate lien if no prejudice)
- Centex-Winston Corp. v. Crown Paint, Inc., 294 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (failure to show owner was adversely affected by NTO error defeats challenge)
- Hardrives Co. v. Tri-County Concrete Prods., Inc., 489 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (mechanics’ lien protects unpaid subcontractors/materialmen)