Florida Appellate Court Clarifies Established Precedent: Unjust Enrichment Claims Survive Despite Expired Construction Liens – Insights from Hernandez v. Burleigh House Condominium, Inc.
In a recent opinion issued on August 13, 2025, by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal in Jorge Hernandez v. Burleigh House Condominium, Inc. (Case No. 3D25-0109), the court reaffirmed longstanding principles under Florida's Construction Lien Law. The ruling clarifies that the extinguishment of a construction lien does not bar contractors from pursuing common law remedies, such as unjust enrichment claims, for unpaid services. This decision aligns with an unbroken line of Florida precedents, providing clear guidance for service providers and property owners alike. As a law firm with extensive experience in construction law, condominium disputes, and commercial litigation, we at [Your Law Firm Name] routinely apply such precedents to help clients recover what they're owed or defend against unwarranted claims. If you're navigating similar issues, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of knowledgeable legal representation.
Case Background: A Dispute Over Unpaid Restoration Services
The facts of the case stem from a common scenario in Florida's bustling construction and restoration industry. Jorge Hernandez, the former owner of First Response Restoration Team, LLC, provided emergency repair services to Burleigh House Condominium following a fire in October 2022. Under an oral agreement, First Response completed the work and invoiced Burleigh House for $155,147.14. Despite the services being rendered, Burleigh House refused payment.
Hernandez, on behalf of his company, timely recorded a claim of lien against the condominium's property under Florida's Construction Lien Law (Chapter 713, Florida Statutes). However, after Burleigh House contested the lien, First Response did not file an enforcement action within the required 60-day window, leading to the lien's automatic extinguishment.
Subsequently, Hernandez sold his company but retained the accounts receivable, including the unpaid invoice from Burleigh House. In September 2024, he filed a lawsuit seeking damages for unjust enrichment—a quasi-contractual claim asserting that Burleigh House unfairly benefited from the restoration work without compensation.
The trial court sided with Burleigh House, granting summary judgment and ruling that Hernandez's claim was essentially an attempt to revive the expired lien under a different name. Relying on prior case law, including Doral Collision Center, Inc. v. Daimler Trust (2022), the lower court held that such "circumvention" was not permitted and that unjust enrichment did not qualify as an "action at law" under the lien statute.
The Appellate Court's Reversal: Affirming Common Law Remedies
On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Scales, reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court emphasized the plain language of Section 713.30, Florida Statutes, which states that the Construction Lien Law is "cumulative to other existing remedies" and does not prevent a lienor from pursuing an action at law for the underlying debt, even if the lien itself is extinguished.
Key highlights from the opinion include:
- Statutory Interpretation: The court noted that the Construction Lien Law provides security for payment but does not alter fundamental contractual rights. It explicitly allows lienors to maintain actions "in like manner as if he or she had no lien," including those based on unwritten or implied agreements.
- Distinguishing Precedent: The trial court's reliance on Doral Collision Center was misplaced, as that case involved the Motor Vehicle Repair Act—a consumer protection statute without a provision like Section 713.30 preserving alternate remedies. The appellate court also referenced a line of Florida cases affirming that discharged liens do not preclude claims for breach of contract, open account, or unjust enrichment.
- Nature of Unjust Enrichment: Addressing concerns that unjust enrichment is "equitable" and thus not an "action at law," the court clarified that when seeking monetary damages (as here), it functions as a legal remedy. This aligns with prior rulings emphasizing fairness in commercial dealings.
The decision reinforces Florida's established policy of protecting contractors while ensuring property owners cannot unjustly retain benefits without payment. As the court aptly stated, the lien law "does not purport to change... the rights and duties arising out of a sale or a contract to pay money."
Implications for Contractors, Condominium Associations, and Property Owners
This ruling underscores well-settled implications in Florida's construction-heavy economy:
- For Contractors and Service Providers: Even if a lien expires or is contested you may still pursue viable claims for unjust enrichment or breach of contract. This case highlights the value of retaining experienced counsel to explore all remedies.
- For Property Owners, Condominium Associations and Property Managers: While liens provide a powerful tool for contesting charges, associations must be cautious—non-payment could lead to costly litigation on common law grounds.
Rosenthal Law Group has extensive experience handling construction lien and monetary disputes. You can reach us at www.rosenthalcounsel.com or (954) 384-9200.