The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . Section 713.37 expressly states that Part I, chapter 713 “shall not be subject to a rule of liberal construction . . .
. . . Further, in 1977, the Legislature enacted section 713.37, which states that “[the Construction Lien Law . . . Before section 713.37 was enacted, our case law emphasized the Construction Lien Law’s purpose of protecting . . .
. . . See also, § 713.37, Fla. . . .
. . . The Construction Lien Law, sections 713.001-713.37, Florida Statutes (2000), applies to this case. . . .
. . . See eh. 77-353, § 15, at 1533, Laws of Fla; § 713.37, Fla. . . .
. . . The current concept of “lienors” in the mechanics’ lien law, sections 713.01-713.37, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . . § 713.37, Fla. Stat. (1989). . . .
. . . . § 713.37, Fla.Stat. (1987) (“This part shall not be subject to a rule of liberal construction....”) . . .
. . . Section 713.37 provides that “[t]his part shall not be subject to a rule of liberal construction in favor . . .
. . . Furthermore, M & G specifically sought relief under the mechanic’s lien statute, §§ 713.01-713.37, Fla . . .
. . . See generally §§ 713.01-713.37, Fla.Stat. . . .
. . . See Section 713.37, Florida Statutes (1983), which reads as follows: “Rule of construction — This part . . . See § 713.37, Fla.Stat. (1981) (“This part [the Mechanics’ Lien Law] shall not be subject to a rule of . . .
. . . Balboa Insurance Co., 408 So.2d 1044, 1046, n. 4 (Fla.1981), that the legislature, by enacting section 713.37 . . . under part I, except those specified in this subsection as they are defined in this section. .Section 713.37 . . . ambiguously provides in full: 713.37 Rule of Construction. — This part shall not be subject to a rule . . .
. . . This appeal concerns the interaction of the Florida Mechanics’ Lien Law, Sections 713.01 to 713.37, and . . .
. . . Section 713.37, Florida Statutes (1981); Falovitch v. . . .
. . . The legislature abrogated that rule by enacting § 713.37, Fla.Stat. (1979). . . .
. . . This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency of $713.37 for the calendar year 1922. . . . the income as shown by his return by the amount reported by his wife, and computed the deficiency of $713.37 . . .