Opinion ID: 1919465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: claim of lien deficiency

Text: The Stunkels argue that the claim is invalid. The trial court refused to enforce the claim of lien after finding that Gazebo's president had not taken an oath when he signed the claim. In addition, the president signed the claim on January 14, 1991, even though the claim included a statement that the lien was hand-posted on January 18, 1991. Section 713.08(3) requires that a claim of lien include an attestation by a notary. Section 713.08(4)(a), states: The omission of any of the foregoing details or errors in such claim of lien shall not, within the discretion of the trial court, prevent the enforcement of such lien as against one who has not been adversely affected by such omission or error. The question is therefore whether the faulty claim of lien adversely affects the Stunkels. Courts have required inquiry into the adverse effects from faulty claim forms with immaterial errors such as the lack of specific labor, services, or materials provided; [4] specific amount of money outstanding; [5] and correct description of the property. [6] Thus, if the trial court determines on remand that the notice to owner was timely, the trial court must determine whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the faulty claim of lien adversely affected the Stunkels. See Mid-State Contractors, Inc. v. Halo Dev. Corp., 342 So.2d 1078, 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).