Jon M. Hall Co. v. Canoe Creek Inv.

385 So.3d 648

JON M. HALL COMPANY, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Petitioner,

v.CANOE CREEK INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and MML II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Respondents.

No. 2D23-1368

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 12, 2024

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Charles P. Sniffen, Judge.

Robert W. Schrimpf of Roetzel & Andress, P.A., Fort Myers, for Petitioner.

Marie A. Borland, Erik P. Raines, and Andrew Holway of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for Respondents.

KHOUZAM, Judge.

Petitioner Jon M. Hall Company, LLC (Hall), timely seeks a writ of certiorari to quash a circuit court order in favor of Respondents Canoe Creek Investments, LLC, Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC, and MML II, LLC (collectively, Canoe Creek). The order grants partial summary judgment for Canoe Creek on Count II of Hall’s complaint (for foreclosure of a construction lien) and also denies Hall’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a new defendant and assert new claims.

In this court, Hall frames two issues, challenging both of the trial court’s rulings as departures from the essential requirements of the law. Because Hall has not demonstrated any departure, we deny the petition. We write to discuss Hall’s contention that the trial court misconstrued sections 713.22 and 713.24, Florida Statutes (2022),¹ in concluding that Hall’s claim of lien was extinguished by operation of law.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a contract in March 2020, under which Canoe Creek was to pay Hall to provide construction and other services at Canoe Creek’s property. A dispute arose: Hall contended it performed all work under the contract; Canoe Creek disagreed and refused to pay.

On April 14, 2022, Hall recorded a claim of lien on Canoe Creek’s property in the amount of $825,639.46 (the Original Claim of Lien). The following month, on May 17, 2022, Canoe Creek transferred the Original Claim of Lien to a lien transfer bond pursuant to section 713.24(1)(b). Three days later, on May 20, 2022, Canoe Creek recorded a notice of contest of Hall’s lien pursuant to section 713.22(2).

In late May 2022, Hall recorded an amended claim of lien on Canoe Creek’s property in the new amount of $1,837,516.76 (the Amended Claim of Lien).

On June 14, 2022, Hall filed a five-count complaint against Canoe Creek. Hall’s complaint does not name the bond surety as a defendant.

Relevant here is Count II for foreclosure of construction lien. Therein, Hall identified both its Original Claim of Lien and its Amended Claim of Lien, seeking to foreclose in the amount of the higher Amended Claim of Lien. Hall’s complaint does not mention Canoe Creek’s transfer of the Original Claim of Lien to the surety or Canoe Creek’s recorded notice of contest of Hall’s Original Claim of Lien. Hall’s complaint does not mention the transfer bond, much less assert a claim against it.

About two weeks later, on July 1, 2022, Canoe Creek transferred the Amended Claim of Lien to a lien transfer bond pursuant to section 713.24(1)(b). The surety was the same as for the Original Claim of Lien. On the same day that Canoe Creek transferred Hall’s Amended Claim of Lien to bond, Canoe Creek also recorded a notice of contest of Hall’s Amended Claim of Lien pursuant to section 713.22(2).

On December 19, 2022, five months after Canoe Creek transferred Hall’s Amended Claim of Lien to bond and recorded its notice of contest of it, Canoe Creek moved for partial summary judgment on Count II, Hall’s claim for foreclosure of construction lien. Canoe Creek asserted that transferring to bond and recording notices of contest as to both Hall’s Original Claim of Lien and Amended Claim of Lien had shortened the time for Hall to bring an action against the bond. Hall had failed to timely do so, thereby resulting in the automatic extinguishment of the lien as a matter of law. Hall opposed the motion.

On February 13, 2023, two months after the summary judgment motion was filed but before it was ruled upon, Hall moved to amend its complaint. Relevant here, Hall sought to add the surety as a defendant to Count II, its claim for foreclosure of construction lien.

Following a hearing on May 9, 2022, the trial court granted Canoe Creek’s motion for partial summary judgment on Count II. The court reasoned that under sections 713.22(2) and 713.24(1)(b) and (4), Canoe Creek’s transfer and recording of the notice of contest as to the Amended Claim of Lien during the litigation shortened the time for Hall to bring a claim against the bond to sixty days, and Hall’s failure to timely do so extinguished its lien automatically as a matter of law. After the trial court reduced its ruling to writing, it entered an agreed upon stay pending appellate review, and Hall’s petition timely followed.

ANALYSIS

Certiorari Jurisdiction and Legal Standard

[1] As a threshold matter, the parties agree that under this court’s decision in Farrey’s Wholesale Hardware Co. v. Coltin Electrical Services, LLC, 263 So. 3d 168, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), Hall has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for certiorari review. That is because "potentially losing the benefit of a recovery under a bond on a claim to enforce a lien constitutes the type of irreparable harm necessary to entitle a party to certiorari relief." Id. (citing Gator Boring & Trenching, Inc. v. Westra Constr. Corp., 210 So. 3d 175, 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)).

[2] Thus, the remaining question is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, which "is something more than a simple legal error." See Allstate Ins. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003) (citing Ivey v. Allstate Ins., 774 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 2000)). "A district court should exercise its discretion to grant certiorari review only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscamage of justice." Id.

[3] Further, "certiorari jurisdiction cannot be used to create new law where the decision below recognizes the correct general law and applies the correct law to a new set of facts to which it has not been previously applied," as in that event, "the law at issue is not a clearly established principle of law." Nader v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712, 723 (Fla. 2012) (citing Ivey, 774 So. 2d at 682-83).

The Parties’ Arguments

Hall contends the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by misinterpreting sections 713.22 and 713.24. Hall raises several arguments, relying principally on its factual assertion that Canoe Creek "did not transfer their lien during this proceeding. It was transferred just prior." (Emphasis added.)

On that express basis, Hall asserts that the court wrongly applied section 713.24(4), which addresses circumstances in which the lien is transferred during litigation. According to Hall, "there was no time limit on when Hall could bring its claim against [the surety], so long as it had timely initiated suit on the lien claim against the property owner."

But as Canoe Creek persuasively responds, this argument ignores Hall’s Amended Claim of Lien, which is more than double the amount of the Original Claim of Lien and upon which Hall’s foreclosure claim seeks relief. That Amended Claim of Lien undisputedly was transferred to bond and noticed for contest by Canoe Creek during the litigation.

Thus, as illustrated by Hiller v. Phoenix Associates of South Florida, Inc., 189 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, No. SC16-711, 2016 WL 3522783 (Fla. June 28, 2016), upon the recording of the notice of contest of the transferred Amended Claim of Lien, section 713.22(2) operated to shorten the time for Hall to bring a claim against the bond to sixty days. As we now explain, because Hall did not seek to bring such a claim within the sixty-day statutory window—instead, waiting an additional five months after the window expired—its lien was "extinguished automatically" as provided by section 713.22(2).

Statutory Analysis

Our supreme court has specified that "[t]he purpose of the fixed periods provided in such statutory remedies as … the Mechanics’ Lien Law was to make definite and certain the time within which the matter can be considered as ended." Jack Stilson & Co. v. Caloosa Bayview Corp., 278 So. 2d 282, 283 (Fla. 1973). The legislative remedy "affects more than the immediate parties in many instances; there are lenders, buyers and others who rely on the fixed periods of time in the lien law. This assurance should not be destroyed by an ‘open-ended’ right of amendment by a lienor beyond the period provided by statute." Id.

[4–6] 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)). In such proceedings, "the trial court does not have the same discretion to bend time requirements that might be allowed under the rules of civil procedure." Id. (quoting Dracon Constr., Inc. v. Facility Constr. Mgmt., 828 So. 2d 1069, 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). Thus, "[i]t is settled law that recovery may not be allowed where the moving party does not comply with the time restrictions and notice requirements of’ chapter 713. Id. (quoting N. Am. Spec. Ins. v. Bergeron Land Dev., Inc., 745 So. 2d 359, 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)).

The two construction lien statutes at the heart of this dispute are section 713.22 and section 713.24. Section 713.22(1) sets a general one-year deadline for a party who has recorded a claim of lien to bring an action to enforce the lien. But subsection (2) of that statute states that "[a]n owner … may elect to shorten the time prescribed...