Case Name: DELTA PAINTING, INC., Appellant, v. Stanley J. BAUMANN and Phyllis Baumann, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-04-22
Citations: 710 So. 2d 663
Docket Number: No. 97-926
Parties: DELTA PAINTING, INC., Appellant, v. Stanley J. BAUMANN and Phyllis Baumann, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and COPE and GREEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 710
Pages: 663–666

Head Matter:
DELTA PAINTING, INC., Appellant, v. Stanley J. BAUMANN and Phyllis Baumann, Appellees.
No. 97-926.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 22, 1998.
Rehearing Denied June 3, 1998.
Rutherford, Mulhall & Wargo, P.A. and John T. Mulhall, III, Boca Raton, for appellant.
Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Striekroot, P.A. and Steven E. Stark and Michael N. Kreitzer, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and COPE and GREEN, JJ.

Opinion:
GREEN, Judge.
Delta Painting, Inc. ("Delta"), a painting contractor, appeals an adverse final judgment which discharged its construction hen as fraudulent and awarded attorney's fees and costs to the appellees/homeowners. We affirm.
After Hurricane Andrew struck and severely ravaged their home, Stanley and Phyllis Baumann ("Baumanns") entered into a written agreement with Delta on or about September 9, 1992, for Delta to paint their 12,000-square-foot residence. According to the provisions of the standard form contract, which was prepared by Delta, any changes in the scope of the job or any other additional work which would increase the cost of the job was prohibited absent written change orders executed by both parties. Thereafter, Delta commenced its work.
At some point during the performance of the contract, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the Baumanns' payment for certain work invoiced by Delta. According to Delta, the Baumanns refused to pay for additional agreed upon work. The Bau-manns maintained, however, that Delta was improperly seeking to recoup additional costs incurred for corrective measures taken for work not properly performed by Delta and for additional unauthorized work for which there were no written change orders signed by them.
Ultimately, when these parties reached an impasse in their disputes, Delta filed a claim of lien in the sum of $21,100, $9100 of which purportedly represented the balance due under the contract and $12,000 of which purportedly represented the balance due for the additional work. Delta also filed the breach of contract action below and an action to foreclose its construction hen. The Bau- manns filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and fraudulent lien seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, as well as a discharge of the lien.
The breach of contract claims and counterclaims were tried to a jury. The lien foreclosure claims and fraudulent lien counterclaim issues, however, were decided by the lower court. The jury returned its verdict on all contractual claims in favor of Delta for $9100. Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, the lower court later declared Delta's lien to be fraudulent based upon its finding that Delta had filed a lien in excess of the contract without any evidence of valid written change orders for the same; Delta had willfully included a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished and/or had otherwise wilfully exaggerated its lien. Accordingly, the lower court discharged the hen and assessed punitive damages in favor of the Bau-manns for $2500. The court also awarded the Baumanns their taxable costs in the amount of $1199 and attorney's fees in the sum of $31,000 for securing the discharge of the lien. After the deduction of Delta's jury award and prejudgment interest as set-offs, final judgment was entered in favor of the Baumanns and against Delta for $23,179.04. Delta appeals and asserts that the lower court abused its discretion in finding its claim of hen to be fraudulent and in not assessing attorney's fees in its favor where it prevailed on a portion of its claim of lien. We find no merit to either of these assertions.
Pursuant to Florida's construction hen law, a hen is deemed to be fraudulent if the henor has willfully: (1) exaggerated the amount of hen claimed; (2) has willfully included a claim for work not. performed upon or materials not furnished for the property upon which the henor seeks to impress such hen; and/or (3) has compiled the claim with such willful and gross neghgence as to amount to a willful exaggeration. See § 713.31(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991); see also Skidmore, Owings and Merrill v. Volpe Constr. Co., 511 So.2d 642, 644 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Hobbs Constr. & Dev., Inc. v. Presbyterian Homes of the Synod of Fla., 440 So.2d 673, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). A determination that a hen is fraudulent is a complete defense to the enforcement of the lien. See § 713.31(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). However, section 713.31(2)(b) was amended in 1991 to preclude the finding of a fraudulent hen based upon a minor mistake or a good faith dispute as to the amount owed.
We begin our review by recognizing that a finding of a fraudulent hen by a trial court is not a discretionary matter. As with any other contested issue, the henor's intent and good or bad faith in filing a hen must be based on competent substantial evidence in the record. See Viyella Co. v. Gomes, 657 So.2d 83, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (lower court's finding of fraudulent hen affirmed based upon contractor's acknowledgment that its claim was overstated where a substantial portion of work remained unperformed); William Dorsky Assoc., Inc. v. Highlands County Title and Guar. Land Co., 528 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (court erred in declaring that contractor had willfully exaggerated the amount of its hen where record evidence revealed that contractor had consulted with and rehed upon advice of attorney prior to filing hen and had presented evidence at trial as to entitlement under theory of quantum meruit or substantial performance); Skidmore, 511 So.2d at 644 (reversing finding of valid hen based upon record evidence that contractor's claim included amounts which were not recoverable and/or authorized under the contract or were arbitrary). But see Stevens v. Site Developers, Inc., 584 So.2d 1064, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (stating "[t]he trial judge still had discretion in determining the intent and good or bad faith of the henor when he stated the amount of the hen claimed"). In this case, we find that the lower court's determination that Delta's hen was fraudulent was amply supported by competent substantial evidence adduced at the trial. For example, there was evidence that Delta's claim of hen included amounts for additional work unauthorized by the Baumanns. There was also evidence that Delta had knowingly included a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished. We think that such evidence is wholly inconsistent with any notion of a minor mistake or good faith dispute between the parties. Thus, because there was competent substantial evidence to support the lower court's finding, we cannot disturb the lower court's conclusions in this regard.
Based upon our affirmance of the lower court's determination that Delta's lien was fraudulent, we likewise conclude that the Baumanns were entitled to their reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in securing the discharge of this lien. See § 713.31(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1991); see also Martin v. Jack Yanks Constr. Co., 650 So.2d 120, 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Therefore, contrary to Delta's assertion, there was no error in this regard either.
Affirmed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., concurs.