Construction liens are relatively commonplace in the construction industry. Liens provide, among other things, an effective mechanism for parties to recoup money allegedly owed to them. To record a claim of lien, a party must satisfy certain requirements set forth in Chapter 713, Florida Statutes. With the exception of professional services, one of these requirements is that the labor, services, or furnished materials constitute an “improvement” or part thereof. While sometimes not an issue, there are occasions where the meaning of “improvement” under Chapter 713, Florida Statutes, can have significant consequences as to the validity of a construction lien.
Fla. Stat. §713.02 sets forth categories for types of lienors and applicable exemptions. Subsection (1) applies to professional services, subsection (2) applies to subdivision improvements, subsection (3) deals with persons who are in privity with an owner, subsection (4) applies to persons who are not in privity with an owner, and subsection (5) deals with improvements where the contract price is $2,500.00 or less. This article addresses particular situations that fall under Fla. Stats. §§713.02 (3)-(5).
More specifically, Fla. Stats. §§713.02 (3)-(5) require the labor, services, or furnished materials to constitute an “improvement” to the real property at issue. Upon further examination, an “improvement” is defined under Fla. Stat. §713.01(15) as “any building structure, construction, demolition, excavation, solid-waste removal, landscaping, or any part therof existing, built, erected, placed, made, or done on land or other real property for its permanent benefit.” (emphasis added). Thus, to have a valid construction lien under Fla. Stats. §§713.02 (3)-(5), the services must constitute a permanent improvement. For most construction labor, services, or furnished materials this requirement is easily met. However, what about those services that may not constitute a permanent improvement to the real property at issue?
The answer to this question is fact specific. Florida case law is relatively sparse regarding this exact issue, but the existing opinions hold that cleaning and maintenance services do not constitute a permanent improvement upon an applicable property and thus said services are not lienable. Legault v. Suncoast Lawn Serv., Inc., 486 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“maintenance landscaping services do not bestow a permanent benefit upon the land, and do not entitle a laborer to a mechanic’s lien”); Levin v. Palm Coast Builders and Constr., Inc., 840 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding items such as pool upkeep charges and lawn maintenance charges were not lienable “by any stretch of the imagination”).
The court in Victoria Grp. relied on a contract’s scope of work clause when analyzing whether the services were lienable under Florida law. Parc Cent. Aventura E. Condo. v. Victoria Grp. Servs., LLC, 54 So. 3d 532, 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). The court, noting that case law is relatively sparse, held that cleaning, maintenance, and concierge services to common building areas are not lienable services under Chapter 713, Florida Statutes. Id. The court references an Illinois appellate court opinion, the only national opinion it found related to this specific issue, which held that the “cleaning of stairways, washroom grouting, and sealing of washroom walls,” were not lienable under that state’s mechanics’ lien law. See Lyons Sav. v. Gash Assocs., 665 N.E.2d 326, 331 (1996) (emphasis added).
Ultimately, the analysis as to whether the labor, services, or furnished materials constitute a permanent improvement and are thus lienable is a fact specific question. Florida courts seem to suggest that certain cleaning and maintenance services are not lienable under Chapter 713, Florida Statutes. There is no cut and dry standard however. Therefore, if presented with a construction lien or in preparation for filing one, make sure that the services provided constitute a permanent improvement to the real property at issue. If the services provided may be considered cleaning or maintenance, be mindful of how Florida courts may interpret construction liens based on these types of services when litigating your case.
Relevant Links & Blog Posts:
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Strikes Down the DOL’s Increased Salary Thresholds for Executive, Administrative, Professional, And Highly Compensated Employee Overtime Exemptions
- Breaking News: FinCEN Postpones Beneficial Ownership Reporting Deadlines for Companies Impacted by Recent Major Storms
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
Popular Categories
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Department of Labor
- Salary
- Construction
- Business of Real Estate
- Landlord-Tenant
- Construction Litigation
- Real Estate Law
- Competition
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Appeals
- Construction
- Public Private Partnership
- Litigation
- Contracts
- Trusts and Estates
- Data Security
- Development/Land Use
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Technology
- Privacy
- IP Litigation
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Patents
- Public Finance
- Business
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Health Care
- Contracting
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Property Tax
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Government
- Conveyances
- Lease
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Infringement
- Cyber fraud
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Bid Protest
- Arbitration
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- International
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Promissory Notes
- Title
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- Consumer Privacy
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- International Arbitration
- Liens
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Power Generation
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Venue
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- Record on Appeal
- FINRA
- Eviction
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Dispute Resolution
- Liens
- Maritime
- Damages
- Briefing
- Patents - Obviousness
- Request for Proposal
- Trade Secrets
- Commercial Brokerage
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Certiorari
- Design Professionals
- Forum Selection
- email hacking
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Designer Liability
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Banking
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Finality
- Fintech
- Marketing/Advertising
- Preservation
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Mootness
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016