Title: Alton Towers, Inc. v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co.
Citation: 262 So. 2d 671
Docket Number: 41343
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 3, 1972

262 So. 2d 671 (1972)
ALTON TOWERS, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Fidelity &amp; Deposit Company of Maryland, Petitioners,
v.
COPLAN PIPE &amp; SUPPLY CO., Inc., a Florida Corporation, Respondent.
No. 41343.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 3, 1972.
Tobias Simon, Miami, for petitioners.
Ralph &amp; Boyd, Miami, and Peters, Maxey, Short &amp; Morgan, Coral Gables, for respondent.
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 249 So. 2d 525. Our jurisdiction is based on conflict between the decision sought to be reviewed and Bryan v. Owsley Lumber Company, 201 So. 2d 246 (Fla.App.1st 1967).
Alton Towers, petitioner herein, is the owner of certain property and the builder of a multi-story apartment building thereon. *672 Alton entered into a direct contract for plumbing with Dade Plumbing which in turn purchased its supplies from respondents, Coplan Pipe &amp; Supply Company. The contract price with the plumber was $48,375.00. At a point in time when $38,889.00 had been paid on this contract, Dade Plumbing went bankrupt and failed to return to the job. Alton, the owner, then retained a new plumber who agreed to and completed the job for an additional $12,968.37. Thus, the total cost to the owner was approximately $52,000.00, a figure $3,482.55 in excess of the amount of the contract with Dade Plumbing.
When Dade Plumbing went bankrupt it owed $4,490.61 to its supplier, Coplan Pipe &amp; Supply Company and that company promptly filed its lien and in default of payment brought suit to foreclose.
The owner maintained that the amount remaining unpaid on the plumbing contract could be offset against the cost of completion and therefore there was no remaining fund out of which the materialman could be paid. The materialman claimed that it was entitled to be paid out of the fund remaining at the time of abandonment before these funds can be used for completion of the job. Both parties complied with the requirements of the mechanic's lien law.
The trial court ruled in favor of the owner. The District Court of Appeal initially affirmed, citing Bryan v. Owsley Lumber Company, supra, and Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1969). On rehearing, however, the District Court reversed its position and decided that the materialman was entitled to be paid by the owner irrespective of damages suffered by the owner. In its opinion on rehearing granted, the District Court stated:[1]
We disagree with the District Court's interpretation of the facts in the instant case. Dade Plumbing Company, in the case before us, is in the same position as the building contractor in the Bryan case, in that both were under direct contract with the property owner. In both cases the contractor under direct contract with the property owner defaulted and materialmen who had supplied materials sought payment from the owner of the full contract price without subtracting the reasonable costs of completing the improvements after the contractor's default. Coplan Pipe &amp; Supply Co., in the instant case, and Owsley Lumber Company, in the Bryan case, were both materialmen, one step removed from contract with the owner. In the Bryan case, the District Court of Appeal, First District, in an able opinion by Wigginton, Chief Judge, held:[2]
*673 We agree with the holding of the District Court in the Bryan case. The result of that case accords with the legislative intent in the enactment of the mechanic's lien law, as stated by the Court in Bryan:[3]
To like effect is the decision in Miller v. Duke,[4] wherein the District Court stated:
The foregoing decisions are in accord with the provisions of the mechanic's lien law, and specifically, Florida Statutes § 713.06(1), F.S.A., which provides:
The fact that Alton Towers is a property owner who has also done its own contracting does not alter the rule of § 713.06 limiting the owner's liability to the contract price fixed in the direct contract. Alton Towers does not fit the definition of "contractor" stated in the mechanic's lien law, § 713.01(2), as follows:
*674 Alton is the "owner" as defined in § 713.01(12),[5] however, and this status takes precedence under the act.
Accordingly, certiorari is granted, the decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DREW, JJ. (Retired), concur.
[1]  Coplan Pipe &amp; Supply Co. v. Alton Towers, Inc., 249 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla.App.3rd 1971).
[2]  Bryan v. Owsley Lumber Co., 201 So. 2d 246, 250 (Fla.App.1st 1967).
[3]  Id. at 249.
[4]  Miller v. Duke, 155 So. 2d 627, 631 (Fla. App.1st 1963).
[5]  "(12) Owner means the owner of any legal or equitable interest in real property, which interest can be reached and sold by any legal process, who enters into a contract for the improvement of such real property."