There are instances where a party does not have construction lien rights but, nevertheless, feels the need to pursue an equitable lien against the real property.
No different than a construction lien, an action to enforce an equitable lien has a one-year limitations period if it arises from the “furnishing of labor, services, or material for the improvement of real property.” Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(5)(b). In other words, an equitable lien–not nearly as powerful as a construction lien because a construction lien is recorded in the official public records whereas an equitable lien is not–is tied to an analogous one-year limitations period for those liening for construction improvements. (Notably, if the equitable lien arises outside of the construction improvement context, the one-year statute of limitations would not apply. See Gabriji, LLC v. Hollywood East, LLC, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2251a (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (one-year statute of limitations period does not apply to all equitable liens such as those that do not arise from furnishing labor, services, or material for the improvement of real property)).
An equitable lien is designed to prevent unjust enrichment when there is no adequate remedy at law although it is a completely separate cause of action than a cause of action for unjust enrichment. Gabriji, supra. An equitable lien:
[I]s “ ‘a right granted by a court of equity, arising by reason of the conduct of the parties affected which would entitle one party as a matter of equity to proceed against’ certain property.” “Such a lien ‘may be declared by a court of equity out of general considerations of right and justice as applied to the relations of the parties and the circumstances of their dealings.’ ”
Gabriji, supra (internal citations omitted).
However, importantly, there is also law that supports that a claim for an equitable lien must be supported by “evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other affirmative deception.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ewell Industries, Inc., 694 So.2d 756, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Gordon v. Flamingo Holding Partnership, 624 So.2d 294, 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Such evidence will likely be needed to support an equitable lien in a construction context which is pursued because a party did not properly perfect construction lien or payment bond rights. An equitable lien may be an appropriate cause of action in certain instances as an argument to pursue recourse for non-payment where the cause of action is designed to foreclose a lien based on equity–not a statute or written instrument.
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.