Case Name: David CROSS and Peggy Cross, Appellants, v. STRADER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-04-28
Citations: 768 So. 2d 465
Docket Number: No. 2D98-3627
Parties: David CROSS and Peggy Cross, Appellants, v. STRADER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Appellee.
Judges: GREEN, J., Concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 768
Pages: 465–467

Head Matter:
David CROSS and Peggy Cross, Appellants, v. STRADER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 2D98-3627.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
April 28, 2000.
Rehearing Denied June 29, 2000.
Debra J. Sutton of The Law Office of Debra J. Sutton, P.A., Bartow, for Appellants.
David and Peggy Cross, Riverview, pro se.
Dennis J. LeVine and D. Brett Marks of Dennis LeVine & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.
David and Peggy Cross appeal an order granting Strader Construction Corporation's motion for enforcement of a judgment hen. We conclude that the homestead exemption precluded the enforcement of the judgment hen and reverse.
The Crosses hired Strader as a general contractor to construct their home. Problems arose and litigation followed. Strader sued under three causes of action: enforcement of a mechanic's lien, breach of contract, and quantum meruit. The Crosses counterclaimed for breach of contract. The trial court denied all claims except Strader's quantum meruit claim. Pursuant to that cause of action, the trial court entered a final judgment awarding Strader $28,011 in damages. Strader then filed a motion to enforce the judgment lien and authorize the sale of the property, which the trial court granted. The Crosses argue that the trial court erred in granting the motion because the property is their homestead. Both parties acknowledge the homestead nature of the property.
The issue is whether Article X, Section 4(a) of the Constitution of the State of Florida protects the Crosses' real property from this judgment lien. Article X, Section 4(a) states in relevant part:
(a) There shall be exempt from forced sale under process of any court, and no judgment, decree or execution shall be a lien thereon, except for the payment of taxes and assessments thereon, obligations contracted for the purchase, improvement or repair thereof, or obligations contracted for house, field or other labor performed on the realty....
(emphasis added).
Strader contends levy and sale are appropriate as the judgment was for goods, labor, and materials that were incorporated into the improvement of the Crosses' property. Strader would be correct if he had prevailed on his mechanic's lien claim or his breach of contract claim. See In re Clements, 194 B.R. 923 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1996); Brinson v. Creative Aluminum Prod., Inc., 519 So.2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). However, the trial court denied both of these claims and the final judgment was not appealed.
Article X, Section 4(a) expressly provides that obligations for the purchase, improvement, or repair of the property, which are contracted for, are an exception to the homestead exemption. Florida law requires a strict construction of the exceptions to the homestead exemption. See Butterworth v. Caggiano, 605 So.2d 56 (Fla.1992). Quantum meruit is the antithesis of matters contracted for. Quantum meruit damages cannot be awarded when an enforceable contract exists. See Corn v. Greco, 694 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). As stated in First Data Resources, Inc. v. Safecard Services, Inc., 574 So.2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), "breach of contract and quantum meruit are mutually exclusive remedies." We conclude that the judgment for quantum meruit damages in this case does not fall within the exceptions to the homestead exemption. Accordingly, Strader's monetary judgment is not enforceable against the Cross property so long as it maintains its homestead status.
This cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GREEN, J., Concurs.
DAVIS, J., Dissents with opinion.