Filed: Oct. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2017
Summary: ORDER DARRIN P. GAYLES , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Require Additional Security ("Motion") [ECF No. 28]. The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied without prejudice. Under Florida law, an interested party may "file a motion in a pending action to enforce a lien . . . for an order to require additional security." Fla. Stat. Ann. 713.24(3). "If the
Summary: ORDER DARRIN P. GAYLES , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Require Additional Security ("Motion") [ECF No. 28]. The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied without prejudice. Under Florida law, an interested party may "file a motion in a pending action to enforce a lien . . . for an order to require additional security." Fla. Stat. Ann. 713.24(3). "If the c..
More
ORDER
DARRIN P. GAYLES, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Require Additional Security ("Motion") [ECF No. 28]. The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied without prejudice.
Under Florida law, an interested party may "file a motion in a pending action to enforce a lien . . . for an order to require additional security." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 713.24(3). "If the court finds that the amount of the deposit or bond in excess of the amount claimed in the claim of lien is insufficient to pay the lienor's attorney's fees and court costs incurred in the action to enforce the lien, the court must increase the amount of the cash deposit or lien transfer bond." Id. However, Florida courts have made clear that "[w]hile section 713.24(3) allows a trial court to order the party providing the bond to either purchase an additional bond or increase the existing bond, or to otherwise provide increased security, the statute does not permit the trial court to increase the liability of the surety beyond the amount of the bond." Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Buck, 594 So.2d 280, 283 (Fla. 1992).
Through its Motion, Plaintiff improperly seeks to increase the liability of the surety, Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company, rather than to obtain additional security from non-party McCorkle Construction Company. If Plaintiff requires additional security, it must instead seek an increase in the bond amount from McCorkle Construction Company, "the party providing the bond." Id.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient basis for the reasonableness of an estimate of $125,000 of attorney's fees on an action to enforce a lien claim of $63,906.23. Defendant is correct that Plaintiff must substantiate a claim for attorney's fees that is nearly twice the amount of the lien claim.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Require Additional Security [ECF No. 28] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE AND ORDERED.
