Lexplug logoLexplug

Liddle v. AF Dozer, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida
2000 WL 1727020, 777 So. 2d 421 (2000)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

The doctrine of election of remedies requires a plaintiff to choose between mutually exclusive theories of recovery prior to the entry of final judgment to prevent double recovery for a single wrong.


Facts:

  • A.F. Dozer, Inc. (Dozer) performed construction or improvement work on property owned by Brooke and Diane Liddle.
  • A dispute arose regarding payment for the services and materials provided by Dozer.
  • The Liddles failed to pay the amount claimed by Dozer for the work performed.
  • Dozer sought to recover the value of the work through a lien on the Liddles' property.

Procedural Posture:

  • Dozer filed a civil complaint against the Liddles in state trial court.
  • The amended complaint included counts for foreclosure of a statutory mechanic's lien and foreclosure of an equitable lien based on unjust enrichment.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial.
  • At the close of evidence, the Liddles moved the court to require Dozer to elect between the statutory remedy and the equitable remedy.
  • The trial court did not rule on the motion to elect remedies.
  • The trial court entered Final Judgment in favor of Dozer on both the statutory mechanic's lien count and the unjust enrichment count.
  • The Liddles appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trial court commit reversible error by entering final judgment in favor of a plaintiff on two mutually exclusive theories of recovery—specifically a statutory mechanic's lien and an equitable lien based on unjust enrichment—without requiring the plaintiff to elect a single remedy?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, the trial court erred by entering judgment on two mutually exclusive theories rather than requiring the plaintiff to select one. The court reasoned that the doctrine of election of remedies is a procedural rule designed specifically to prevent double recoveries for a single wrong. While the plaintiff (Dozer) was entitled to recover the money owed, seeking foreclosure of a statutory mechanic's lien is legally inconsistent with seeking an equitable lien for unjust enrichment on the same facts. The trial court's entry of judgment on both counts effectively created a double recovery. Therefore, while the appellate court affirmed that Dozer was entitled to the money, it remanded the case with instructions for Dozer to choose exactly one legal theory for the final judgment.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the procedural safeguards against duplicative judgments in civil litigation. It clarifies that while plaintiffs may plead alternative theories of liability (even inconsistent ones) throughout the litigation process, they cannot finalize a judgment that validates mutually exclusive theories. The ruling ensures that defendants are not subject to multiple enforcement actions for a single debt. Practically, this forces plaintiffs' counsel to make strategic decisions before the entry of judgment regarding which theory provides the most secure or advantageous remedy (e.g., considering attorney's fees or priority of liens).

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Liddle v. AF Dozer, Inc. (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"