By Jeffrey T. Donner, Esq.

Introduction

Construction lawyers love simple rules. One of the most common: “If you improved the property, you can lien.”

The Fourth District’s decision in JM Properties of W. Palm Beach, Inc. v. Fort Dallas Truss Company, LLC is a reminder that Chapter 713 does not operate on slogans. It operates on statutory elements. And lien rights and contract rights are not the same thing.

In this case, the supplier proved the contractor breached the agreement. It proved it was a proper “materialman.” It proved money was owed.

And it still lost the lien.

That is why this case matters.

What Happened

The property owners replaced their original contractor. The new contractor (JM Properties) entered into a contract with a truss company to design, manufacture, and deliver trusses.

The agreement required a 50% payment upon completion of shop drawings.

The trial court made a specific factual finding: the contractor was told the shop drawings were complete and payment was due. The contractor did not pay. Instead, it avoided contact.

The truss company responded the way many suppliers do. It recorded a construction lien for 50% of the contract price plus sales tax. It sued for breach of contract and to foreclose the lien.

The contractor bonded the lien off the property by posting a cash bond. After a nonjury trial, the trial court entered judgment for the truss company and ordered release of funds from the lien transfer bond.

On appeal, the Fourth District agreed in part — but reversed where it mattered most: the lien itself.

Holding One: Yes, It Was a Materialman

The contractor argued the supplier was not a “materialman.” That argument failed.

Under section 713.01(20), a materialman includes someone who furnishes materials for direct delivery to the site and, in the case of specially fabricated materials, may fabricate them off-site for a particular improvement — so long as no installation labor is performed.

The truss company manufactured trusses for this specific project and was to deliver them to the site. There was no conflicting evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s factual finding that the company qualified as a materialman.

That part of the opinion is straightforward.

Fabricating off-site does not destroy materialman status.

But classification alone does not guarantee lien rights.

Holding Two: No Permanent Benefit, No Lien

Here is where the case becomes important.

Florida’s lien statute ties lien rights to “improvements.” And an “improvement” must be something existing, built, erected, placed, made, or done on land for its permanent benefit.

The trusses in this case were never delivered.

Nothing was placed on the property.

Nothing conferred a permanent benefit.

That ended the lien.

The Fourth District relied on its prior decision in Palm Beach Mall, Inc. v. Southeast Millwork, Inc., where lien rights failed because the structure at issue did not provide permanent benefit to the property.

The key principle is simple and strict:

If the property did not receive a permanent benefit, the lien does not attach — even if the contract was breached and even if the supplier performed substantial off-site work.

The supplier may recover breach-of-contract damages. But it may not collect through foreclosure of a lien or through the lien transfer bond.

The court reversed the release of lien funds and remanded for determination of proper contract damages only.

Why This Case Matters

This fact pattern is common.

A supplier’s contract includes an early milestone payment — shop drawings, engineering time, fabrication slots, procurement.

The contractor stalls or refuses to pay.

The supplier files a lien to gain leverage.

JM Properties teaches that the leverage may not exist if no materials ever reach the property.

Chapter 713 is not designed to secure every upstream commercial loss in a construction relationship. It is designed to secure those who actually improve real property.

This is not a fairness doctrine. It is a statutory-eligibility doctrine.

You can be right on the contract and still lose the lien.

Practical Lessons

First, treat early-stage work as contract risk.

If you are billing for shop drawings, engineering coordination, or fabrication preparation, do not assume you have lien security unless something is actually delivered to or incorporated into the property.

Second, draft contracts with enforcement in mind.

If early payments are critical, consider stronger contractual protections — cancellation fees, termination charges, storage fees, acceleration clauses, and other mechanisms that do not depend on lien rights.

“I’ll just lien it” is not always a real strategy.

Third, on the defense side, separate lienability from breach.

Even if breach is clear, lien rights are a separate statutory inquiry. If nothing permanent ever reached the property, attack the lien immediately. Force the plaintiff back into a pure contract-damages posture.

That changes leverage dramatically.

Conclusion

JM Properties is a short opinion, but it draws a bright line.

Florida construction liens are property-based, not equity-based.

A supplier can qualify as a materialman.
It can prove breach.
It can be owed money.

And it can still have no lien.

If there was no permanent benefit to the property, the statute does not allow recovery through Chapter 713.

That distinction — between contractual entitlement and lien entitlement — is where this case earns its importance.