as it found the construction mortgage to have priority over appellant’s mechanic’s lien. REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED. SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. 1 . Adamson filed various counterclaims and cross-claims including a cross-claim seeking foreclosure of its mechanic’s lien. The trial court severed such claims from First Federal’s complaint seeking foreclosure of its two mortgages and, consequently, the judgment of foreclosure which is the subject of this appeal does not purport to adjudicate Adamson’s lien foreclosure claim. 2 . We are not dealing with a case in which the contractor seeks to assert his mechanic’s lien against a lessor of a lessee who has contracted with the lienor. Compare Budget Electric Company v. Strauss, 417 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>); see also Section 713.10, Florida Statutes
holding that a lienor under a contract with a lessee is entitled to a lien against the lessors interest only where the lease expressly or impliedly requires the lessee to make improvements to the leased property holding that the appellant contractor failed to prove the existence of a lease provision requiring the lessee to make the improvements at issue which could have the effect of subjecting the lessors property to a lien holding that the lessors interest in the leased property was subject to liens because it was perfectly obvious that the parties knew that the improvements at issue were the pith of the lease and that except for them the lease would not have been executed and because the improvements were essential to the purpose of the lease holding that the mere fact that the parties to a lease may contemplate that the lessee will make improvements to the property is insufficient to subject the lessors interests to mechanics liens and that the lease must instead expressly or impliedly require the requirements to be made holding that a lessors interest can only be subject to liens arising from improvements performed on the leased property if the lease required the improvements or if under judicial interpretation the improvements were the pith of the lease