Home Elec. of Dade Cnty., Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Home Elec. of Dade Cnty., Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we hold that the mechanics' lien law is to be strictly construed in every particular and strict compliance is an indispensable prerequisite for a person seeking affirmative relief under the statute.”
28 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Buck (fla, 1992-02-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Buck (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. · 1992 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we hold that the mechanics' lien law is to be strictly construed in every particular and strict compliance is an indispensable prerequisite for a person seeking affirmative relief under the statute.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JON M. HALL COMPANY, LLC v. CANOE CREEK INVESTMENTS, LLC, NEAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, LLC, AND MML II, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
To that end, "[t]he mechanics' lien law is to be strictly construed in every particular and strict compliance is an indispensable prerequisite for a person seeking affirmative relief under the statute." Hiller, 189 So. 3d at 274 (quoting Home Elec. of Dade Cnty., Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So. 2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1989)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DORAL COLLISION CENTER, INC. v. DAIMLER TRUST
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
It is well-settled “‘that the mechanics’ lien law is to be strictly construed in every particular [manner] and strict compliance is an indispensable prerequisite for a person seeking affirmative relief under the statute.’” Home Elec. of Dade Cnty., Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So. 2d 109, 110 (Fla. 1989) (quoting Palmer Elec.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CDC Builders, Inc. v. Riviera Almeria, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Additionally, as the Florida Supreme Court stated in Home Electric of Dade County, Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So.2d 109, 110 (Fla.1989), “[construction] liens are purely creatures of the statute” and as a “statutory creature, the [construction] lien law must be strictly construed.” This Court is well aware of the impact this decision could have on the construction industry as a whole.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hanley v. Kajak
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Home Elec. of Dade *1249 County, Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) MURSTEN CONST. CO. v. CES Industries, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
See id.; Stresscon v. Madiedo, 581 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1991), approving 561 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Home Electric of Dade County, Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So.2d 109, 110-11 (Fla. 1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Phillips
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Home Elec. of Dade County, Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stresscon v. Madiedo
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
In response the Stresscon employee who signed the statement of account provided an affidavit stating, in part, that “The statements set forth in the November 9, 1987 letter [the statement of account] are true on this date as they were true on the date thereof.” In granting summary judgment for the Madiedos, the trial court relied on the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Home Electric of Dade County, Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So.2d 109 (Fla.1989) in which the court stated, “We hold ‘that the mechanics’ lien law is to be strictly construed in every particular and strict compliance …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CORP. OF PRESIDENT OF LATTER DAY CH. OF JESUS CHRIST v. Seymour Elec. Supply Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
In a recent decision, Home Electric of Dade County, Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1989), Justice McDonald wrote for a unanimous court as follows: We hold "that the mechanic's lien law is to be strictly construed in every particular and strict compliance is an indispensable prerequisite for a person seeking affirmative relief under the statute." [6] Id. at 111 .
cited Cited "see" DRO 15R LLC v. Ajar Holdings, LLC
Bankr. S.D. Florida · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Home Elec. of Dade County, Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So. 2d 109, 110-11 (Fla. 1989).
discussed Cited "see" Snell v. Mott's Contracting Services, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: accord · confidence high
The Construction Lien Law “is a creature of statute and must be strictly construed.” Stunkel v. Gazebo Landscaping Design, Inc., 660 So.2d 623, 625 (Fla.1995); accord Home Electric of Dade Cnty., Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So.2d 109, 110 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" Premier Finishes, Inc. v. Maggirias
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Home Electric of Dade Cnty., Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So.2d 109 , 111 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see" John Richard Marek v. Harry K. Singletary
11th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marek v. Dugger, 547 So.2d 109 (Fla.1989).
cited Cited "see, e.g." WMS Construction, Inc. v. North American Specialty Insurance Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Home Electric of Dade County, Inc. v. Gonas, 547 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla.1989) (mandating strict compliance with the construction lien law). 7.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HOME ELECTRIC OF DADE COUNTY, INC., Petitioner,
v.
Roy B. GONAS, et al., Respondents.
73337.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 6, 1989.
547 So. 2d 109
McDonald.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

[*110] Harold A. Turtletaub, Miami, for petitioner.

Roy B. Gonas, Coral Gables, for respondents.

McDONALD, Justice.

We have for review Gonas v. Home Electric, Inc., 537 So.2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), in which the district court acknowledged conflict with Alex v. Randy, Inc., 305 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), over whether a demand letter from an owner to a lienor must state that the lienor has to comply within the time limit set out in subsection 713.16(2), Florida Statutes (1985), or lose the lien. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and we approve the district court's decision in Home Electric.

Home Electric (Home) filed a claim of mechanics' lien against the Gonases for electrical work done on their home as a subcontractor. Gonas wrote to Home demanding a written accounting under oath, as specified by subsection 713.16(2).[1] The demand letter did not mention that a reply must be made within thirty days to preserve the lien, and Home did not furnish the required statement under oath within thirty days. In the action to foreclose Home's lien Gonas moved for summary judgment based on failure to comply with the statute. The trial court denied that motion and, after trial, entered final judgment for Home. On appeal the district court reversed, holding that the mechanics' lien law must be complied with strictly and that Home had not done so.

In Alex the first district construed the then-current version of subsection 713.16(2) liberally and held that a demand letter must include notice of the statutory time for reply. The version of subsection 713.16(2) at issue in Alex, however, provided that reply must be made within only ten days. Moreover, the first district placed great emphasis on the fact that the parties in Alex were lay persons and not familiar with the technical requirements of the applicable law.

We agree with the instant district court that Alex should not control. As this court stated before, mechanics' liens are "purely creatures of the statute." Sheffield-Briggs Steel Products, Inc. v. Ace Concrete Service Co., 63 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 1953). As a statutory creature, the mechanics' lien law must be strictly construed. Id.; Foy v. Mangum, 528 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Palmer Electric Services, Inc. v. Filler, 482 So.2d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Subsection 713.16(2) does not require that the owner tell the lienor about the statutory time limit. In Alex the first district ignored the above-stated rule of construction and grafted an additional requirement onto the statute. This it could not properly do.[2] We therefore disapprove[*111] Alex to the extent of conflict with this opinion.

We hold "that the mechanics' lien law is to be strictly construed in every particular and strict compliance is an indispensable prerequisite for a person seeking affirmative relief under the statute." Palmer, 482 So.2d at 510.[3] An owner's demand letter need not warn a lienor of the consequences of failing to respond. We approve the instant decision reversing the trial court's final judgment.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

1 § 713.16(2), Fla. Stat. (1985), provides as follows:

(2) At the time any payment is to be made by the owner to the contractor or directly to a lienor, the owner may in writing demand of any lienor a written statement under oath of his account showing the nature of the labor or services performed and to be performed, the materials furnished and to be furnished, the amount paid on account to date, the amount due, and the amount to become due. Failure or refusal to furnish the statement within 30 days after the demand, or furnishing of a false or fraudulent statement, shall deprive the person so failing or refusing to furnish such statement of his lien.

2 "The wisdom of the various provisions of the [mechanics' lien act] are matters wholly within the orbit of legislation. We have no right to step into that field." Sheffield-Briggs Steel Products, Inc. v. Ace Concrete Service Co., 63 So.2d 924, 926 (Fla. 1953).
3 Home argued at oral argument that this case should be remanded regarding the existence of an equitable lien. The district court did not consider this claim, and we choose not to do so as well.