The contract at issue was entered into between the son of the property owner and a contractor, and the court ultimately refused to enforce a lien against the property owner due to conflicting evidence about whether the son was actually acting as an agent of the property owner for the purposes of the contract.
WB Septic & Sitework Inc v. Tucker, arises from a dispute over payments for a septic tank and concrete work. The contractor entered into a contract with the son of a property owner to install a septic tank, concrete pad, and finish a driveway for the son’s new trailer parked at the back of the property. After work was completed, and neither the son nor his mother paid for the improvements, the contractor recorded a construction lien against the property.
The contractor then sued both the son and the mother seeking to foreclose the construction lien and seeking damages under a quantum meruit theory. At trial, the contractor testified that he signed a contract with the son for the work performed and that both the son and the mother’s names were on the contract. The contractor also testified that he asked the son if he owned the property and the son said that his mother owned the property but that he had her permission to have the work performed and that he was acting as her agent and representative. The contractor testified that he never spoke with the mother, but that she was aware of the work being performed at the property because all the trucks and equipment had to drive by her house on the property to get to the site of the work.
The son testified that he had permission from his mother to do whatever work was needed to put his trailer at the back of the property but that she did not have any input on the contractors he used. He also testified that the contract listed him as the property owner, and that while he knew that was not correct, he did not correct it. The mother similarly testified that her son had permission to undertake the work at the property, but that she never discussed what contractors he was using and that she had never picked up any of the certified mail notices that were sent to her.
At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that the son was liable to the contractor for damages for breach of contract, but that the lien could not attach to the property because there was no contract between the mother and the contractor. The court also denied any relief against the mother on the quantum meruit claim. The contractor appealed.
On appeal, the contractor argued that the lien should be enforceable because the son was acting as the mother’s agent, and nothing in the lien law prohibits the entry into contracts by an agent of the property owner. The mother argued that the only recognized “agency” under the lien law is the spousal agency set forth in 713.12, Florida Statutes, whereby one spouse can bind both to a contract for the purposes of the lien law.
The First District Court of Appeal agreed with the contractor (and other Florida cases) that an agent can enter into a contractor on behalf of a property owner and subject the owner to a lien, but that the contractor had failed to properly establish that such an agency relationship existed, stating:
Although we agree with the Second and Third Districts that the owner of land may be held liable and a statutory lien attached to the land under section 713.10 based on contracts entered by an agent of the owner, agency requires satisfaction of an onerous burden of proof. The fact that an owner was present or aware of an improvement being made is not enough to subject her interest to a lien or put her in privity with a plaintiff. To prove an agent-principal relationship existed, the following elements must be proven: “(1) acknowledgement by the principal that the agent will act for him or her, (2) the agent's acceptance of the undertaking, and (3) control by the principal over the actions of the agent.” Robbins v. Hess, 659 So. 2d 424, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). An agency exists only if all the elements are present, and the party alleging the agency relationship has the burden to prove it. Id.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court had resolved any conflicting evidence in favor of the mother, meaning the contractor had failed to carry its burden to establish the agency relationship.
With regard to the contractor’s quantum meruit claim against the mother, the appellate court also affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the mother, finding that the existence of an express contract between the son and the contractor barred recovery against the mother under an equitable claim for quantum meruit.
The key takeaway from this case for contractors is that any time they are entering into a contract, they should look in the public records and confirm who the property owner is, and if they are not contracting with the property owner, either adjust the contract or make sure to comply with other notice provisions of the lien law. Further, contractors may want to confirm with the property owner whether the person contracting for the improvements truly is their agent before executing the contract, in order to have a complete picture of what their contract and lien rights may be.