At page 317 Determining lienability of non-improvement charges4 citing casesupholding trial court’s finding that lien was fraudulent because it included items that were not lienable “by any stretch of the imagination,” including pool upkeep charges, lawn maintenance charges, homeowner’s association fees, and utility charges
- K & M Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Brown Elec. Solutions, LLC, 432 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).publishedThis holding is well in line with precedent. 4 In Newman v. Guerra, 208 So. 3d 314 , 319-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), we found “no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the contractor’s lien was fraudulent, where the court…
- Newman v. Guerra, 208 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).published(upholding trial court’s finding that lien was fraudulent because it included items that were not lienable “by any stretch of the imagination,” including pool upkeep charges, lawn maintenance charges, homeowner’s associa…)
- M.B. Hayes, Inc. v. Tak Chin Choi (In Re M.B. Hayes, Inc.), 305 B.R. 361 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2003).published Levin, 840 So.2d at 317 [declining to award punitive damages absent assertion of claim supported by a reasonable ev-identiary basis]; Ponce Investments, Inc., 718 So.2d at 282 [holding lien to be fraudulent with no award of punitive damage…
- Medellin v. MLA Consulting, Inc., 69 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).published(We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the above items were not lien-able, or the finding that the lien was fraudulent. Whether this was willful exaggeration under section 713.3 l(2)(a)
v.
PALM COAST BUILDERS AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
[*317] Keith T. Grumer and Maidenly Sotuyo-Macaluso of Grumer & Levin, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Thomas D. DeCarlo of Cameron, Davis & Gonzalez, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
KLEIN, J.
Palm Coast, which built a home for the Levins, filed a mechanic's lien alleging it had not been fully paid. Palm Coast partially recovered damages, but the court found the lien fraudulent. We affirm.
The trial court found that the lien filed by Palm Coast was fraudulent because it included nonlienable items such as pool upkeep charges, lawn maintenance charges, homeowner's association fees and utility charges. Palm Coast contends that because its building contract required it to pay for these items it could properly include them in its lien.
Our lien law defines "improvement" as something that is done for the "permanent benefit" of the land. § 713.01(14), Florida Statutes (2001). Although planting landscaping would constitute an improvement, maintaining it does not, for purposes of qualifying the labor for a lien. Legault v. Suncoast Lawn Serv., Inc., 486 So.2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We find no error in the trial court's conclusion that the above items were not lienable, or the finding that the lien was fraudulent. Whether this was willful exaggeration under section 713.31(2)(a) was an issue of fact. As the trial court noted, these items were not lienable "by any stretch of the imagination." Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc., 584 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
The Levins contend that the trial court was required as a matter of law to award them punitive damages after finding the lien to be fraudulent, relying on section 713.31(2)(c) which states that a "lienor who files a fraudulent lien shall be liable to the owner or the defrauded party in damages, which shall include ... punitive damages in an amount not exceeding the difference between the amount claimed by the lienor[*318] to be due or to become due and the amount actually due or to become due."
Palm Coast responds that at no time did the Levins claim punitive damages in either the pleadings or the pretrial stipulation, nor did they comply with section 768.72, Florida Statutes, which provide the procedure for asserting punitive damage claims. We agree with Palm Coast that the Levins did have to seek punitive damages in the pleadings and comply with section 768.72 which requires a plaintiff to provide a reasonable evidentiary basis for a punitive damage claim before including it in a complaint. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla.1995).
We have considered the other issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal and find them to be without merit. Affirmed.
STEVENSON, J., and BAILEY, JENNIFER D., Associate Judge, concur.