Trent Cotney, Partner, Adams & Reese and FRSA General Counsel - November 2025
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion in Custom Homes by Triumph, LLC v. Sverdlow, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D1946a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2025) that provides critical guidance on how contractors and subcontractors should approach the enforcement of mechanics’ liens. While the case involved a custom home builder rather than a roofing contractor, its lessons apply directly to roofing professionals who frequently rely on liens to secure payment. The decision illustrates both the technical nature of Florida’s lien statute and the importance of acting quickly and correctly when owners attempt to discharge liens.
The facts of the case are straightforward but instructive. Custom Homes by Triumph contracted with the Sverdlows to build a custom residence. Payment disputes arose and the contractor recorded a construction lien under Chapter 713 of the Florida Statutes. To enforce its rights, the contractor filed suit for breach of contract and lien foreclosure. The owners counterclaimed to discharge the lien, invoking Florida Statutes section 713.21(4). That statute allows an owner to file a motion requiring the contractor to show cause why its lien should not be vacated. If the contractor fails to respond within 20 days, the lien can be discharged.
The trial court agreed with the owners and discharged the lien. It also dismissed the lien foreclosure count with prejudice, effectively extinguishing the contractor’s lien rights. The contractor sought appellate review. Because the discharge order did not resolve all claims between the parties, the Second District treated the matter as a petition for writ of certiorari rather than a direct appeal. This procedural detail is important because it shows how lien enforcement disputes can take unusual procedural paths and why contractors must be vigilant in protecting their rights.
On review, the appellate court found that the trial court had departed from the essential requirements of law in two ways. First, the court held that the trial court started the 20-day “show cause” clock incorrectly. The owners had served their counterclaim and argued that service started the deadline. But under section 713.21(4), the 20-day period does not begin with service of a pleading: it begins only when the clerk of court issues a summons directing the lienor to show cause. In this case, no summons was ever issued. Therefore, the time for the contractor to respond never began to run and the trial court erred by treating the lien as unenforceable.
Second, the appellate court emphasized that even if a summons had been issued, the contractor had already satisfied the statute by filing an action to foreclose its lien. Section 713.21(4) provides alternative ways for a lienor to preserve its lien rights: either by showing cause within the statutory period or by commencing an enforcement action. Since the contractor had already filed a foreclosure complaint, it had complied with the statute. Discharging the lien under those circumstances was a misapplication of the law.
The appellate court quashed the trial court’s order, thereby restoring the contractor’s lien rights. This outcome is significant not only for the parties but also for the broader construction industry. The decision reinforces that mechanics’ lien rights are highly dependent on procedural precision. Owners may attempt to exploit technicalities to discharge liens but contractors who understand the statutory scheme and act diligently can protect their rights.
For roofing contractors, the takeaways are clear. First, mechanics’ liens are powerful tools but they are creatures of statute. Strict compliance with notice requirements, filing deadlines and enforcement procedures is essential. A lien that is valid in substance can still be lost if procedural steps are mishandled. Roofing contractors should ensure that their office staff and counsel are well versed in the timing rules of Chapter 713.
Second, this case highlights the value of filing lien foreclosure actions promptly. Many contractors hesitate to take the step of filing suit, preferring to negotiate or wait out disputes. While settlement should always be considered, delaying enforcement can expose contractors to the risk of losing their lien rights. Filing a foreclosure action not only pressures owners to resolve disputes but also provides statutory protection against attempts to discharge the lien. Roofing contractors should view foreclosure actions as part of their toolbox, to be deployed strategically when payment issues persist.
Third, the case demonstrates that owners and their counsel may misinterpret or misapply lien statutes. The Sverdlows attempted to run the 20-day clock based on service of a counterclaim but the appellate court clarified that the statute is triggered only by a summons issued by the clerk. Roofing contractors should not assume that an owner’s motion to discharge is valid just because it appears procedurally sound. Instead, they should carefully examine whether the statutory conditions have been satisfied before making strategic decisions about settlement or litigation.
Finally, this case underscores the importance of having experienced construction counsel involved in lien disputes. The mechanics’ lien process is not intuitive and trial courts can make mistakes that dramatically affect contractors’ rights. In this case, appellate intervention was necessary to correct the trial court’s error. Roofing contractors who face similar challenges should act quickly to involve counsel who can preserve issues for appeal and ensure compliance with the statute.
In sum, Custom Homes by Triumph v. Sverdlow is a reminder that lien rights are both powerful and fragile. They provide contractors, including roofing professionals, with leverage to secure payment but only if the statutory procedures are strictly observed. The case demonstrates that filing a foreclosure action early can protect lien rights, that the 20-day “show cause” clock does not begin without a clerk’s summons and that trial courts may err in interpreting lien statutes. For roofing contractors, the lesson is to be proactive, precise and legally informed in every step of the lien process. Protecting lien rights may require swift action but doing so ensures that contractors are not left unpaid for the work they perform.
The information contained in this article is for general educational information only. This information does not constitute legal advice, is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as legal advice for your specific factual pattern or situation. Trent Cotney is a Partner and Construction Team Leader at the law firm of Adams & Reese, LLP and FRSA General Counsel. You can reach him at 866-303-5868 or email trent.cotney@arlaw.com.