performance doctrine in Florida

2026Under Florida law, a contractor is entitled to a mechanic’s lien if he complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, governing construction liens, and “has substantially performed the contract.” Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quotation omitted); Langley v. Knowles, 958 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The substantial performance doctrine recognizes that a contractor who complies with all of the provisions of the contractor's lien statute is entitled to enforce a lien if he has substantially, but not completely, performed his contractual 8 obligations.”).

2007See Grant v. Wester, 679 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Viking Comtys Corp. v. Peeler Constr.

2023See J Square Enters. v. Regner, 734 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (agreeing that “[t]here is no logical reason . . . why the full performance doctrine should not also apply to the Bank Statute of Frauds”).

2006See also J Square Enterprises v. Regner, 734 So.2d 565, 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (no logical reason why the full performance doctrine should not apply to the bank statute of frauds).

2000See id. at 1239-40 .

2000See id. at 1239-40 .

2019To establish the Strickland deficiency prong, “the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances” under “prevailing professional norms.” Id. at 688 .

2004See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)(“In any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.”); Hoffman v. State, 827 So.2d 1046, 1048-49 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(holding that in claim by defendant that counsel’s ineffective assistance caused him to turn down State’s plea offer, “defendant must prove 1) that his counsel failed to communicate or misinformed him about a plea offer, 2) that he would have accepted the plea offer had he been correct

1985Cottages, Miami Beach, Inc. v. Wegman, 57 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1951), 59 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1952); Saints in Christ The Temple of the Holy Ghost v. Fowler, 448 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (possession is part performance); Evans v. Parker, 440 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Poinciana Properties, Ltd. v. Englander Triangle, Inc., 437 So.2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Pan American Engineering Co., Inc. v. Poncho's Construction, 387 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (written contract can be modified by subsequent oral agreement).

1978Cottages, Miami Beach v. Wegman, 57 So.2d 439, 441 (Fla. 1951).

2026Under Florida law, a contractor is entitled to a mechanic’s lien if he complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, governing construction liens, and “has substantially performed the contract.” Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quotation omitted); Langley v. Knowles, 958 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The substantial performance doctrine recognizes that a contractor who complies with all of the provisions of the contractor's lien statute is entitled to enforce a lien if he has substantially, but not completely, performed his contractual 8 obligations.”).

2026Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms "is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract." Lockhart v. Worsham, 508 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

2023See § 95.11(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016); see also Wing, 107 So. 2d 765 (lessor did not have right to cancel lease and declare a forfeiture where lessor breached provision requiring it to reconstruct destroyed buildings, where breach occurred, and lessor failed to enforce provision for over two years).

2022We also note that the postconviction court did not acknowledge the extensive mitigation evidence that was presented at the penalty phase, including the compelling testimony by Mullens’s now-deceased mother. - 32 - inquiry.”); Stephens v. State, 748 So. 2d 1028, 1031-32 (Fla. 1999) (noting that prejudice is legal conclusion which is accorded no deference); Sochor, 883 So. 2d at 781 (“[O]ur job is to review independently the circuit court’s legal conclusion—that is, whether Sochor has carried his burden of demonstrating a reasonable probability that the result of the penalty phase would have bee

2022We also note that the postconviction court did not acknowledge the extensive mitigation evidence that was presented at the penalty phase, including the compelling testimony by Mullens’s now-deceased mother. - 32 - inquiry.”); Stephens v. State, 748 So. 2d 1028, 1031-32 (Fla. 1999) (noting that prejudice is legal conclusion which is accorded no deference); Sochor, 883 So. 2d at 781 (“[O]ur job is to review independently the circuit court’s legal conclusion—that is, whether Sochor has carried his burden of demonstrating a reasonable probability that the result of the penalty phase would have bee

2015See Zikofsky, 904 So.2d at 524 ('[In] a suit on a contract, the failure of a defendant to raise a fraudulent inducement defense will bar the defendant from later raising the defense in a second action on the same contract or from making fraudulent inducement ‘the basis of a subsequent suit by the defendant* against the plaintiff.” (citation omitted)).- However, as with the specific performance claim, we find that the fraudulent inducement claim, as pled, meets the transactional test as it is essentially related to the eviction claim.

2012Corp., 576 So.2d 748, 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that the doctrine of partial performance does not apply to personal service contracts); Johnson v. Edwards, 569 So.2d 928, 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (“It is now well established that partial performance of a contract for personal services is not an exception to the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.” (citing Tobin & Tobin Ins.

2012Corp., 576 So.2d 748, 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that the doctrine of partial performance does not apply to personal service contracts); Johnson v. Edwards, 569 So.2d 928, 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (“It is now well established that partial performance of a contract for personal services is not an exception to the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.” (citing Tobin & Tobin Ins.

2005NOTES [1] Because the trial court's order was based on the statute of frauds, we do not reach the issue of whether the complaint stated causes of action for anticipatory breach of contract. [2] One case construes the full performance doctrine to apply "only if the parties intended that one party perform the agreement within one year, and the party fully performs within such time." Collier v. Brooks, 632 So.2d 149, 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (Ervin J., dissenting).

2005As the dissent in Collier observed, that case's limitation on the full performance doctrine was contrary to prior Florida case law, which held that "full performance by one party removes [a] contract from the operation of the statute of frauds, without consideration of the parties' intent and the length of time before completion." Id. (citations omitted).

2004See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)(“In any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.”); Hoffman v. State, 827 So.2d 1046, 1048-49 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(holding that in claim by defendant that counsel’s ineffective assistance caused him to turn down State’s plea offer, “defendant must prove 1) that his counsel failed to communicate or misinformed him about a plea offer, 2) that he would have accepted the plea offer had he been correct

2003“Substantial performance is performance ‘nearly equivalent to what was bargained for.’ ” Pullam v. Hercules Inc., 711 So.2d 72, 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

2000See Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981).

1999It may be in such a case that the doctrine of part performance would still be applicable. " 605 So.2d at 558 (emphasis supplied).

1996See, e.g., Edwards v. Rives, 35 Fla. 89 , 17 So. 416 (1895)(allowing reestablishment of a lost contract for the sale of land and a specific performance claim to proceed simultaneously); Griffin v. Fries, 23 Fla. 173 , 2 So. 266 , 267-68 (1887)(allowing a claim for reestablishment to proceed with a claim for relief under such document in the same cause of action); Young v. Charnack, 295 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)(action to reestablish and enforce lost mortgage and note).

1996See, e.g., Edwards v. Rives, 35 Fla. 89 , 17 So. 416 (1895)(allowing reestablishment of a lost contract for the sale of land and a specific performance claim to proceed simultaneously); Griffin v. Fries, 23 Fla. 173 , 2 So. 266 , 267-68 (1887)(allowing a claim for reestablishment to proceed with a claim for relief under such document in the same cause of action); Young v. Charnack, 295 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)(action to reestablish and enforce lost mortgage and note).

1991See, Kirkland v. State Dept. of HRS, 489 So.2d 800, 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).