In a recent case dealing with a construction lien, the driving issue was whether the air conditioning contractor “substantially performed” before recording its construction lien against residential property. The importance here pertains to the substantial performance doctrine with respect to construction liens. The Third District Court of Appeal explained, with relevant citations, this doctrine as follows:
Under Florida law, a contractor is entitled to a mechanic’s lien if he complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, governing construction liens, and “has substantially performed the contract.” Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quotation omitted); Langley v. Knowles, 958 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The substantial performance doctrine recognizes that a contactor who complies with all of the provisions of the contactor’s lien statute is entitled to enforce a lien if he has substantially, but not completely, performed his contractual obligations.”). Substantial performance is performance “so nearly equivalent to what was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price subject to the promisor’s right to recover whatever damages may have been occasioned him by the promisee’s failure to render full performance.” Ocean Ridge Dev. Corp. v. Quality Plastering, Inc., 247 So. 2d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
Contactor, LLC v. Allbrite Elec. Contractors, Inc., 780 So. 2d 963, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[W]hether a subcontractor has substantially performed is a question of fact” and “should not be decided as a matter of law.”); Grant, 679 So. 2d at 1307 (“Substantial performance is a question of fact.”).
Torres v. A&P Air Conditioning Corp., 2026 WL 602664 (Fla.3d DCA 2024).
In this case, an owner hired an air conditioning contractor to install two air conditioning units. After the units were installed, the owner claimed one of the units was installed incorrectly and refused to pay the contract balance. The contractor claimed the units passed final inspection and recorded a construction lien. Thereafter, the contractor replaced the unit claimed to be incorrectly installed. The owner argued the lien was premature because the contractor did not “substantially perform” at the time it recorded its construction lien because one of the units was not installed correctly. While the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the contractor, this was reversed on appeal with a reason being that substantial performance is a question of fact.
If you are recording or defending against a construction lien, please work with construction counsel.
Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.