JOHNSON & BAILEY ARCHITECTS, P.C., Appellant,
v.
SOUTHEAST BRAKE CORPORATION, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
*777 Judith W. Simmons and W. Gray Dunlap, Jr., of Foley & Lardner, Tampa, for appellant.
Ellen J. Neil and Toni L. Kemmerle, of Holland & Knight, Tampa, for appellee.
THREADGILL, Judge.
Johnson & Bailey Architects, P.C. (Johnson & Bailey), appeal a final order dismissing with prejudice its complaint against Southeast Brake Corporation (Southeast) and an award of attorney's fees against the firm and counsel. Wе reverse.
Johnson & Bailey sued to foreclose a mechanic's lien originally filed on August 8, 1985 for services rendered to Windsor Woods, Ltd., Southeast's predecessor in interest on two development properties in Pasco County. Although the lien as then recorded identified the contract out of which the claim arose, it did not include a description of the property as required under § 713.08(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (1985). The lien was re-recorded on August 26 to include a legal description of the properties for which servicеs were rendered. Finding the August 26 recordation beyond the ninety-day filing period allowed after the last furnishing of services or materiаls, the court ruled the lien invalid and dismissed the suit with prejudice. The cоurt also awarded attorney's fees to Southeast under seсtion 57.105, Florida Statutes (1986).
We find that it was error to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Florida law is clear that a trial court should affоrd a reasonable opportunity to amend a pleаding unless doing so would result in prejudice to the other party. Town of Coreytown v. State,
We also find error in the failure to enforce the August 8th claim of lien. Although that claim failed to attach a legal desсription of the property, section 713.08(4)(a) Florida Statutes, сlearly states that "the omission of the foregoing details or errors [i.e., legal description] in such claim of lien shall not, within the disсretion of the trial court, prevent the enforcement of such lien as against one who has not been adversely affected by such omission or error."
Although Johnson & Bailey argued on rehearing that there had been no showing of adverse effect, the trial court required no evidentiary hearing on this issue. We find this was an abuse of the court's discretion. While technical fulfillment of statutory components in a claim of lien are desirable, the lack of such a component cannot form the basis of a deniаl of enforcement of the lien where the lienor has othеrwise substantially complied with the requisites. Mid-State Contractors, Inc. v. Halo Development Corp.,
*778 Southeast contends thаt the failure to include a description of the propеrty when the lien was originally recorded was failure to substantially comply with the lien law. We cannot accept this argument in light of the clear language of 713.08(4)(a) that an omission will not defeаt the lien without a showing of prejudice. See also Adobe Brick and Supply Co. v. Centex-Winston Corp.,
It was also error to award Southeast attorney's feеs under § 57.105. Such an award is appropriate only where the lоsing party has failed to raise any justiciable issue of either lаw or fact. Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corporation,
Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and the award of attorney's fees, and remand to the trial court with instructions that Johnson & Bailey be given leave to amend its complaint.
Reversed and remanded.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.