Florida Construction Liens: Routine Services Are Not “Improvements”

Florida construction liens are a powerful collection tool, but they do not secure every unpaid invoice connected to a building. In Parc Central Aventura East Condominium v. Victoria Group Services, LLC, 54 So. 3d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal held that routine cleaning, maintenance, concierge, and security services are not “improvements” to real property under Florida’s Construction Lien Law, and cannot support a lien against condominium units.

For associations, unit owners, and the vendors who serve them, the decision draws a clear line between work that improves property and work that simply keeps it running. Below is a brief of the case and what it means for Florida construction liens today.

Facts of the Case

Victoria Group Services, LLC and three affiliated companies (together, “Victoria Group”) contracted with Parc Central Aventura East Condominium Association, Inc. to service the condominium’s common areas: the entrance, lobby, pool, clubhouse, gym, activity rooms, and restrooms. Under three contracts running from January 2008 through February 2009, Victoria Group provided “standard residential cleaning, maintenance & concierge services,” along with security. The work included vacuuming, dusting, trash removal, floor care, and accepting residents’ packages.

When the invoices went unpaid, Victoria Group recorded a claim of lien for $280,737.27 against more than 100 condominium units, relying on both Chapter 713 and section 718.121 of the Florida Condominium Act. The Miami-Dade circuit court granted summary judgment for Victoria Group and entered a final judgment foreclosing the lien against the individual units. The association appealed.

Issues

• Do routine cleaning, maintenance, concierge, and security services to condominium common areas qualify as an “improvement” that can support Florida construction liens under Chapter 713?
• Does section 718.121 give a vendor an independent right to lien every unit for services the association authorized, even without a valid Chapter 713 lien?
• Was the affidavit Victoria Group filed one day before the summary judgment hearing timely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c)?

Holding: Florida Construction Liens Require an Improvement

The Third District reversed. Routine maintenance and operational services are not lienable “improvements” under section 713.01, so they fall outside Florida construction liens and the claim of lien was invalid. Section 718.121 did not change that result, because it does not create lien rights of its own. The court also agreed that Victoria Group’s opposing affidavit was filed late under the summary judgment rule then in effect.

The court remanded with directions to dissolve the lien and to enter a money judgment for Victoria Group against the association only, not against the units. The vendor kept its contract recovery. It lost its security.

Rationale

The statute protects improvements. Chapter 713 exists to protect those who furnish labor, services, or materials for the improvement of real property. Section 713.01 defines an “improvement” as any building, structure, construction, demolition, excavation, landscaping, or similar work made on land “for its permanent benefit.” Relying on E & E Electric Co. v. Gold Coast 72nd Street Diner, Inc., 116 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), the court explained that the qualifying benefit is an addition to the fee. Work that adds nothing to the fee cannot ground Florida construction liens.

Maintenance is not improvement. Cleaning, concierge, and security work keeps property as it is; it adds nothing permanent to it. The court drew on Legault v. Suncoast Lawn Service, Inc., 486 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which held that lawn mowing and shrubbery trimming are not lienable, and on an Illinois decision recognizing that mere maintenance of property is non-lienable. That limit sits at the core of Florida construction liens.

Section 718.121 does not create a lien. Victoria Group argued that under section 718.121, work on the common elements authorized by the association is deemed furnished with each owner’s consent and may support a lien against every unit. The court rejected that argument because it assumes the very lien in question. Section 718.121 governs how a valid Chapter 713 lien attaches to, and may be released from, multiple condominium parcels. Citing Trintec Construction, Inc. v. Countryside Village Condominium Ass’n, 992 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), the court held that the vendor had no independent lien right.

Practice Points on Florida Construction Liens

• Associations and boards: When a vendor threatens or records a lien, first ask whether the work was an improvement. Janitorial, concierge, security, and similar recurring service contracts fall on the maintenance side of the line, and a lien based on them can be challenged.
• Unit owners: Section 718.121(3) lets each owner relieve his or her parcel of a valid lien by exercising the rights of an owner under Chapter 713 or by paying the proportionate share. If the underlying work was never lienable, the lien should not encumber the unit at all.
• Vendors: Before recording, confirm the work adds permanent value to the property, because Florida construction liens reach only improvements. A service vendor still has a breach-of-contract claim against the association, but a defective lien invites a challenge and possible prevailing-party fee exposure under section 713.29.
• Mixed contracts: The line can blur when one contract combines routine service with true improvement work, such as replacing equipment or installing new landscaping. Separate scopes and invoices make it easier to show which charges support Florida construction liens and which do not.

If your association, your unit, or your business is dealing with a disputed lien or questions about Florida construction liens, Cox Law, PLLC serves clients throughout Florida and can review the contract, the work performed, and the recorded claim of lien to advise you on your rights, risks, and options. Please direct inquiries to Webquestion@Coxlawplc.com or call (813) 685-8600.

Read the Opinion

Read the full opinion (PDF): Parc Central Aventura East Condominium v. Victoria Group Services, LLC, No. 3D10-254 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 19, 2011).

The information on this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this site, using any contact form, or sending an email to our office does not create an attorney-client relationship. No such relationship exists unless and until a written engagement agreement is signed by both you and the firm. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information contained on this site without seeking professional counsel licensed in your jurisdiction. Every legal situation is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.