A construction lien can turn your Florida dream home into a nightmare—blocking refinancing, delaying sales, and clouding your title. In this video, construction attorney Travis McConnell explains how Florida homeowners can use a Notice of Contest of Lien under section 713.22(2), Florida Statutes to speed up resolution.
DISCLAIMER: This video is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Key Takeaway:
Contractors who have already filed a lien foreclosure action cannot be forced into a redundant show cause process. Property owners cannot use section 713.21(4) to discharge a lien when enforcement is already underway.
Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal has just confirmed what every construction lawyer already knew, and it is remarkable the trial court got this wrong. In Custom Homes by Triumph LLC v. Sverdlow (Aug. 29, 2025), the court held that once a contractor files a lawsuit to foreclose a construction lien, a property owner cannot use the “show cause” procedure under section 713.21(4), Florida Statutes, to force the contractor to justify the lien. The statute gives the contractor two options when served with a show cause summons: either show cause why the lien should not be vacated or enforce the lien by filing a foreclosure action. If the contractor has already filed suit to foreclose, it has satisfied the statute by enforcing the lien, and no separate show cause response is required.
The trial court in this case nevertheless discharged the lien for failure to respond to a “show cause” counter-complaint even though the contractor had already sued to foreclose. The Second District quashed that order, reaffirming that filing a foreclosure action is itself the enforcement the statute requires.
Disclaimer: This update is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified counsel regarding their specific circumstances.
Running a Florida business and stuck in a bad service contract? In this video, Travis from Ready Legal explains your options when you want out of a vendor agreement, whether it’s due to poor service or changing needs. Learn the difference between termination for convenience and termination for cause, what notice provisions mean, and how to negotiate a cleaner exit.
DISCLAIMER: This video is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Florida House Bill 615 proposes changes to Florida Statutes to permit electronic delivery of notices between landlords and tenants under certain conditions. The bill introduces section 83.505, which allows notices to be sent via email if both parties consent through a specific addendum to the rental agreement and provide valid email addresses. This addendum must clarify that participation is voluntary and that either party may revoke their consent or update their email address at any time. Each party has a designated section in the addendum to opt into email delivery, specify their email, and acknowledge their rights. Revocation or email updates require written notice and take effect upon delivery, without impacting notices already sent.
Under the bill, an email notice is considered delivered when sent unless it bounces back as undeliverable, and the sender must retain a copy of the notice and proof of transmission. The bill authorizes electronic delivery of specific notices, including those related to security deposits, the landlord’s address, extermination notices, and rental terminations. These provisions aim to modernize communication in rental agreements while preserving key legal safeguards for both parties. The legislation is designed to improve convenience and efficiency without compromising legal clarity. If enacted, the new law would take effect on July 1, 2025.
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.
In Florida civil litigation, motions to dismiss serve a specific and limited purpose: to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. They are not a procedural tool for determining factual disputes or resolving substantive legal questions better suited for summary judgment. Therefore, Florida courts have repeatedly held that litigants should not misuse motions to dismiss in an attempt to dispose of claims that have been adequately pled.
The Florida Supreme Court has emphasized that “[t]he purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not to determine factual issues.” The Florida Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1199 (Fla. 2006). Similarly, Florida’s appellate courts have reinforced that a motion to dismiss may not act as a substitute for a motion for summary judgment. Holland v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 643 So. 2d 621, 622-23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
This distinction is critical. A motion to dismiss merely examines whether the complaint alleges sufficient ultimate facts to state a cause of action. As the Second District Court of Appeal cautioned:
“[W]e again caution against converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment for the purpose of attempting to terminate litigation. Counsel must remember that each motion has a separate purpose under our rules of civil procedure. Holland, 643 So. 2d at 623-24.
Thus, courts must deny motions to dismiss that improperly seek to litigate factual disputes instead of focusing on the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.
When reviewing a motion to dismiss, courts must construe all allegations “in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and the trial court must not speculate what the true facts may be or what will be proved ultimately in trial of the cause.” Hitt v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 387 So. 2d 482, 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The court’s inquiry is confined strictly to the four corners of the complaint. Bryant v. Coordinated Programs, Inc., 534 So. 2d 932, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
Importantly, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action “should not be granted unless the allegations in the pleading attacked show with certainty that the Plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim.” Truesdell v. Proctor, 443 So. 2d 107, 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). As such, dismissal is improper when the complaint adequately pleads a claim. Port Marina Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Roof Servs., Inc., 119 So. 3d 1288, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Florida courts consistently reject attempts to use motions to dismiss as de facto summary judgment motions. As reaffirmed in Holland, “[t]he ultimate consequence of improper summary judgment on a motion to dismiss is reversal.” 643 So. 2d at 624. To avoid such procedural missteps, defendants should confine their dismissal arguments to the sufficiency of the complaint rather than attempting to litigate factual disputes at the pleading stage. Proper adherence to this standard ensures that cases proceed in accordance with Florida’s procedural rules.
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.
READY LEGAL