Florida’s Second DCA Affirms Unit Owner Rights to Challenge Mechanic’s Liens

In Stein v. Reynolds Ventures, Inc., No. 2D2025-2795 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 7, 2026), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal clarified the rights of individual condominium unit owners to challenge mechanic’s liens, and delivered a stark reminder to contractors about the strict procedural requirements governing lien enforcement.

Background

The Steins owned a condominium unit in Sarasota County. Their condominium association contracted with Reynolds Ventures to perform work on the common elements. Following a dispute with the condominium association, Reynolds Ventures recorded a mechanic’s lien against all unit owners, as permitted under Florida law.[1]

The Steins filed suit to discharge the lien under section 713.21, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to section 713.21(4), the clerk issued a summons requiring Reynolds Ventures to show cause within 20 days why the lien should not be enforced by action or canceled. Typically, to avoid cancellation of the lien, lienors must take steps to foreclose its lien within that 20-day window.[2]

Reynolds Ventures did not initiate foreclosure. Instead, it argued that it was attempting to resolve the dispute with the association and that commencing litigation would undermine those efforts. The trial court agreed, finding that Reynolds Ventures had established good cause “based upon the existence of a contract, services performed thereto and the lack of payment therefor.” The Second DCA reversed, ordering the lien discharged. In so holding, the Second DCA made two key findings:

Key Holdings

Unit Owner Standing

The Second DCA expressly found that the Steins, as unit owners, had standing to challenge the mechanic’s lien, even though the Steins were not the party that contracted with Reynolds Ventures – the condominium association was. Under section 718.121(2), when an association authorizes work on common elements, a contractor may record liens against all units in proportion to each unit’s share of common expenses. Section 718.121(3) then confirms that each unit owner may exercise the rights of a property owner under Chapter 713. Accordingly, the Second DCA found that the Steins had standing to seek discharge of the lien on their individual unit.

The “Show Cause” Requirement

The Second DCA also emphasized that proceedings under section 713.21 are “special statutory proceedings” requiring strict compliance—including rigid adherence to time limits.

Reynolds Ventures’ argument that it was negotiating with the association and that litigation would undermine settlement efforts was insufficient to show good cause. Additionally, Reynolds Ventures’ alternative request for an extension of time to commence foreclosure proceedings was not authorized under the statute. Because Reynolds Ventures failed to show good cause or initiate foreclosure within 20 days, the Second DCA ordered the lien canceled.

Practical Implications

For Contractors:

• Stein underscores the importance of treating show cause proceedings with urgency. Arguments about ongoing negotiations or concerns that litigation might disrupt settlement talks have not been found sufficient to establish good cause. Moreover, the existence of a contract and failure to pay is insufficient to demonstrate good cause. When a property owner invokes section 713.21, contractors may need to file a counterclaim to foreclose or demonstrate that foreclosure proceedings are already pending to avoid cancellation of the lien. Importantly, losing the lien does not extinguish the underlying contract claim; the two are distinct.

• Contractors should also note that when a show cause action is filed, the Final Contractor’s Affidavit must still be served, but the five-day advance service requirement may not apply. This nuance can be critical given the tight 20-day statutory window.

For Condominium Unit Owners:

• Under Florida law, unit owners may have standing to challenge mechanic’s liens under Chapter 713 even when the contractor’s agreement was solely with the association. Potential avenues include:

  • Show Cause Proceedings: If the contractor fails to strictly comply with the statutory requirements, the court may be required to discharge the lien.

  • Transfer to Bond: Unit owners may be able to transfer their pro rata share of the lien to a surety bond, clearing the title while preserving the contractor’s ability to pursue payment from the bond.

  • Notice of Contest: Serving a notice of contest of lien can shorten the contractor’s deadline to commence foreclosure to 60 days, potentially forcing prompt action or resulting in loss of lien rights.

Conclusion

Stein v. Reynolds Ventures serves as a reminder that Florida’s mechanic’s lien statutes demand strict compliance. Contractors should be prepared to act swiftly when a show cause summons is issued; reliance on ongoing negotiations may not preserve lien rights. Unit owners, meanwhile, may have meaningful tools to protect their property interests—even when liens arise from contracts between contractors and their associations. Both parties are encouraged to consult qualified legal counsel when navigating these procedural requirements.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with qualified legal counsel regarding your specific situation. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this article.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See Royal Ambassador Condo. Ass'n v. E. Coast Supply Corp., 495 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (finding that a mechanic’s lien for work on common elements pursuant to a contract with a condominium association is proper if it “claims a lien on all of the units in the building according to their respective percentage shares of the common expenses of the condominium.”)

[2] See Ruffolo v. Par. & Bowman, Inc., 966 So. 2d 434, 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“Absent informing the court that a lienor has already taken steps to foreclose its lien, rarely does a circumstance rise to the level of “good cause” to avoid the mandatory 20–day time limit.”)