Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien Law Query FOLLOW UP CONSTRUCTIONDEPOSIT QUERY
Why not agree to have the general contractor pay the suppliers deposits directly to the supplier?
"Croom, Janet" jcroom@verolaw.com wrote:
I have been requested to share with the group continuation of this lien
law query. (our fearless leader is one of the members requesting, and
so please use WWAD?! accordingly).
DEPOSIT Issue:
Cautious GC requested to pay deposit for materials by sub, allegedly
required by supplier/manufacturer, etc. GC inquires further of exact
amount of required deposit, as GC does not want to fund sub's
operational end of sub's business. Deposit amount allegedly required
then modified downward.
GC will pay deposit if required, but does not want to be left out
substantial amounts of "deposit" monies paid to a sub, if the sub
suddenly goes out of business/disappears. For example, GC uses sub on
15 projects, each requiring at least $50,000 deposit. GC does not
appear entitled to inquire as to relationship between sub and its
supplier/manufacturer. 713.16, Fla. Stat, etc. do not seem to address
this issue.
With the economy so tight in the construction industry, I am seeing a
shift in business to the requirement of many more "deposits" being
required. Shifting the risk of loss appears to be a bit more
complicated in the above scenario, and yet this is where the
construction trend appears to be heading.
Please delete if this issue does not relate to your practice.
Otherwise, please respond to the group with any practical or legal
remedies. Thanks-janet
Janet Carney Croom, Esquire
Board Certified - Construction Law
Board Certified - Business Litigation
Collins, Brown, Caldwell, Barkett & Garavaglia, Chartered
756 Beachland Boulevard
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Telephone: 772-231-4343
Fax: 772-234-5213
jcroom@verolaw.com blocked::mailto:jburgess@verolaw.com
http://www.verolaw.com blocked::mailto:www.cbc@verolaw.com
The information contained in this message is legally privileged and
confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender by via telephone, email, or the U.S.
Postal service at the address above, and destroy the message. Thank you.
Lee A. Weintraub
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
Emerald Lake Corporate Park
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-6525
954.985.4147 Phone
954.985.4176 Fax
LWeintraub@becker-poliakoff.com
http://www.becker-poliakoff.com
Our clients' total satisfaction is our #1 priority. The Becker & Poliakoff Client CARE Center is available for questions, concerns and suggestions. Please contact us at 954.364.6090 or via email at CARE@becker-poliakoff.com.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Weintraub, Lee
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:02 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien Law Query
If the material delivery is job specific, even if not shipped directly
to the job site, you need a release from the supplier. I would hold up
future payments to the sub until releases have been provided. I've had
situations before where contractors refused to provide releases and I
got them by drafting a dec action complaint (the contract didn't require
releases) saying 713.06's proper payment provisions contemplate
providing releases to the owner and the uncertainty about our
entitlement to demand releases supported a dec action. This has been a
fairly successful tactic, as everyone wants to avoid a lawsuit,
especially where the contractor can offer no legitimate explanation to
the court about why releases aren't being provided.
Click here http://www.floridaconstructionlawauthority.com/ to
subscribe to our complimentary Florida Construction Law Blog.
http://www.becker-poliakoff.com/ Lee A. Weintraub
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
Emerald Lake Corporate Park
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-6525
954.985.4147 Phone
954.985.4176 Fax
LWeintraub@becker-poliakoff.com
www.becker-poliakoff.com
Our clients' total satisfaction is our #1 priority. The Becker &
Poliakoff Client CARE Center is available for questions, concerns and
suggestions. Please contact us at 954.364.6090 or via email at
CARE@becker-poliakoff.com mailto:CARE@becker-poliakoff.com .
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Croom, Janet
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:54 AM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien Law Query
Query: Cautious GC wants to protect self/owner from material suppliers
claims. Subs request a deposit for materials they have to buy on a
project. GC wants release of lien from supplier. Some subs are
resisting furnishing a release of lien from supplier, either for deposit
or for full payment to suppliers. This issue comes up when suppliers,
in the ordinary course of business, do not ship material directly to a
specific job site at a specific address and do not have access to
information contained on a NOC. Ex: carpet supplier to flooring sub
who ships carpet to flooring sub under subcontractor order. I know the
basic law on this issue, but from a practical standpoint, are any of you
running into this type of issue, and if so, what resolution are you
working out for your GC/client? In compliance with WWAD?!, please email
me directly, and not "reply to all". Thanks!
Janet Carney Croom, Esquire
Board Certified - Construction Law
Board Certified - Business Litigation
Collins, Brown, Caldwell, Barkett & Garavaglia, Chartered
756 Beachland Boulevard
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Telephone: 772-231-4343
Fax: 772-234-5213
jcroom@verolaw.com blocked::mailto:jburgess@verolaw.com
http://www.verolaw.com blocked::mailto:www.cbc@verolaw.com
The information contained in this message is legally privileged and
confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender by via telephone, email, or the U.S.
Postal service at the address above, and destroy the message. Thank you.
That (Lee) was the first thought that occurred to me, as I frequently see
the sub and GC splitting the labor and services ("work") and the materials
out of the subs bid/proposal these days simply because there is so little
margin in any subcontract that most can't cash flow much of anything these
days.
I presume the sub (in this instance) has put some markup on the materials
which accounts for much if not all of any profit he built into his bids. If
he gives up his supplier and the materials, unless the GC will let him put
more money into the "work", he is probably making zero or losing on the
contracts.
Regards,
Gregory T. Elliott
ELLIOTT - BERGER, P. A.
10225 Ulmerton Road, Suite 4A
Largo, Florida 33771
(727) 360-2600 (Phone)
(727) 360-6588 (Fax)
Construction Law
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This message and its attachments are intended
solely for the use of the addressee. In addition, this message and the
attachments may contain information that is confidential, privileged and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing,
reproducing, distributing, disseminating or otherwise using this
transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended
recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have
received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply
E-mail and immediately delete this message from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Weintraub, Lee
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:11 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien Law Query FOLLOW
UPCONSTRUCTIONDEPOSIT QUERY
Why not agree to have the general contractor pay the suppliers deposits
directly to the supplier?
"Croom, Janet" jcroom@verolaw.com wrote:
I have been requested to share with the group continuation of this lien
law query. (our fearless leader is one of the members requesting, and
so please use WWAD?! accordingly).
DEPOSIT Issue:
Cautious GC requested to pay deposit for materials by sub, allegedly
required by supplier/manufacturer, etc. GC inquires further of exact
amount of required deposit, as GC does not want to fund sub's
operational end of sub's business. Deposit amount allegedly required
then modified downward.
GC will pay deposit if required, but does not want to be left out
substantial amounts of "deposit" monies paid to a sub, if the sub
suddenly goes out of business/disappears. For example, GC uses sub on
15 projects, each requiring at least $50,000 deposit. GC does not
appear entitled to inquire as to relationship between sub and its
supplier/manufacturer. 713.16, Fla. Stat, etc. do not seem to address
this issue.
With the economy so tight in the construction industry, I am seeing a
shift in business to the requirement of many more "deposits" being
required. Shifting the risk of loss appears to be a bit more
complicated in the above scenario, and yet this is where the
construction trend appears to be heading.
Please delete if this issue does not relate to your practice.
Otherwise, please respond to the group with any practical or legal
remedies. Thanks-janet
Janet Carney Croom, Esquire
Board Certified - Construction Law
Board Certified - Business Litigation
Collins, Brown, Caldwell, Barkett & Garavaglia, Chartered
756 Beachland Boulevard
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Telephone: 772-231-4343
Fax: 772-234-5213
jcroom@verolaw.com blocked::mailto:jburgess@verolaw.com
http://www.verolaw.com blocked::mailto:www.cbc@verolaw.com
The information contained in this message is legally privileged and
confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender by via telephone, email, or the U.S.
Postal service at the address above, and destroy the message. Thank you.
Lee A. Weintraub
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
Emerald Lake Corporate Park
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-6525
954.985.4147 Phone
954.985.4176 Fax
LWeintraub@becker-poliakoff.com
http://www.becker-poliakoff.com
Our clients' total satisfaction is our #1 priority. The Becker & Poliakoff
Client CARE Center is available for questions, concerns and suggestions.
Please contact us at 954.364.6090 or via email at CARE@becker-poliakoff.com.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Weintraub, Lee
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:02 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien Law Query
If the material delivery is job specific, even if not shipped directly
to the job site, you need a release from the supplier. I would hold up
future payments to the sub until releases have been provided. I've had
situations before where contractors refused to provide releases and I
got them by drafting a dec action complaint (the contract didn't require
releases) saying 713.06's proper payment provisions contemplate
providing releases to the owner and the uncertainty about our
entitlement to demand releases supported a dec action. This has been a
fairly successful tactic, as everyone wants to avoid a lawsuit,
especially where the contractor can offer no legitimate explanation to
the court about why releases aren't being provided.
Click here http://www.floridaconstructionlawauthority.com/ to
subscribe to our complimentary Florida Construction Law Blog.
http://www.becker-poliakoff.com/ Lee A. Weintraub
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
Emerald Lake Corporate Park
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-6525
954.985.4147 Phone
954.985.4176 Fax
LWeintraub@becker-poliakoff.com
www.becker-poliakoff.com
Our clients' total satisfaction is our #1 priority. The Becker &
Poliakoff Client CARE Center is available for questions, concerns and
suggestions. Please contact us at 954.364.6090 or via email at
CARE@becker-poliakoff.com mailto:CARE@becker-poliakoff.com .
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Croom, Janet
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:54 AM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien Law Query
Query: Cautious GC wants to protect self/owner from material suppliers
claims. Subs request a deposit for materials they have to buy on a
project. GC wants release of lien from supplier. Some subs are
resisting furnishing a release of lien from supplier, either for deposit
or for full payment to suppliers. This issue comes up when suppliers,
in the ordinary course of business, do not ship material directly to a
specific job site at a specific address and do not have access to
information contained on a NOC. Ex: carpet supplier to flooring sub
who ships carpet to flooring sub under subcontractor order. I know the
basic law on this issue, but from a practical standpoint, are any of you
running into this type of issue, and if so, what resolution are you
working out for your GC/client? In compliance with WWAD?!, please email
me directly, and not "reply to all". Thanks!
Janet Carney Croom, Esquire
Board Certified - Construction Law
Board Certified - Business Litigation
Collins, Brown, Caldwell, Barkett & Garavaglia, Chartered
756 Beachland Boulevard
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Telephone: 772-231-4343
Fax: 772-234-5213
jcroom@verolaw.com blocked::mailto:jburgess@verolaw.com
http://www.verolaw.com blocked::mailto:www.cbc@verolaw.com
The information contained in this message is legally privileged and
confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender by via telephone, email, or the U.S.
Postal service at the address above, and destroy the message. Thank you.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
I would appreciate any feedback any members of the committee have the time or inclination to provide on the following:
A construction lien was timely recorded and a lawsuit was timely filed. However, just prior to a 57.105 hearing as to the frivolity of the lien and foreclosure action, the lienor (through counsel) voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. The lien was never released and demands for release have gone unanswered.
The propery owner would like to clear the lien as quickly and cheaply as possible. Would a notice of contest of lien, if recorded now, be effective to terminate the lien if a new lawsuit is not filed (or the old one re-opened) within 60 days?
Justin R. Zinzow | Zinzow Law
Board Certified Construction Specialist
35111 U.S. Highway 19 N.
Suite 302
Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Ph: (727) 787-3121
Fax: (727) 787-3231
Website | Bio
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 727-787-3121 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, are not intended to be advice to avoid tax laws or penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
The GC can still agree to pay the sub's mark-up per the agreed upon
contract between them. However, to avoid the risk of overpaying up
front and the sub not performing, the payment logistics can include the
GC paying the supplier for materials and paying the markup to the sub as
work is performed.
Lee A. Weintraub
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
Emerald Lake Corporate Park
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-6525
954.985.4147 Phone
954.985.4176 Fax
LWeintraub@becker-poliakoff.com
http://www.becker-poliakoff.com
Our clients' total satisfaction is our #1 priority. The Becker & Poliakoff Client CARE Center is available for questions, concerns and suggestions. Please contact us at 954.364.6090 or via email at CARE@becker-poliakoff.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Gregory T. Elliott
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:31 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien Law Query
FOLLOWUPCONSTRUCTIONDEPOSIT QUERY
That (Lee) was the first thought that occurred to me, as I frequently
see
the sub and GC splitting the labor and services ("work") and the
materials
out of the subs bid/proposal these days simply because there is so
little
margin in any subcontract that most can't cash flow much of anything
these
days.
I presume the sub (in this instance) has put some markup on the
materials
which accounts for much if not all of any profit he built into his bids.
If
he gives up his supplier and the materials, unless the GC will let him
put
more money into the "work", he is probably making zero or losing on the
contracts.
Regards,
Gregory T. Elliott
ELLIOTT - BERGER, P. A.
10225 Ulmerton Road, Suite 4A
Largo, Florida 33771
(727) 360-2600 (Phone)
(727) 360-6588 (Fax)
Construction Law
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This message and its attachments are intended
solely for the use of the addressee. In addition, this message and the
attachments may contain information that is confidential, privileged and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing,
reproducing, distributing, disseminating or otherwise using this
transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the
intended
recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have
received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by
reply
E-mail and immediately delete this message from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Weintraub, Lee
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:11 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien Law Query FOLLOW
UPCONSTRUCTIONDEPOSIT QUERY
Why not agree to have the general contractor pay the suppliers deposits
directly to the supplier?
"Croom, Janet" jcroom@verolaw.com wrote:
I have been requested to share with the group continuation of this lien
law query. (our fearless leader is one of the members requesting, and
so please use WWAD?! accordingly).
DEPOSIT Issue:
Cautious GC requested to pay deposit for materials by sub, allegedly
required by supplier/manufacturer, etc. GC inquires further of exact
amount of required deposit, as GC does not want to fund sub's
operational end of sub's business. Deposit amount allegedly required
then modified downward.
GC will pay deposit if required, but does not want to be left out
substantial amounts of "deposit" monies paid to a sub, if the sub
suddenly goes out of business/disappears. For example, GC uses sub on
15 projects, each requiring at least $50,000 deposit. GC does not
appear entitled to inquire as to relationship between sub and its
supplier/manufacturer. 713.16, Fla. Stat, etc. do not seem to address
this issue.
With the economy so tight in the construction industry, I am seeing a
shift in business to the requirement of many more "deposits" being
required. Shifting the risk of loss appears to be a bit more
complicated in the above scenario, and yet this is where the
construction trend appears to be heading.
Please delete if this issue does not relate to your practice.
Otherwise, please respond to the group with any practical or legal
remedies. Thanks-janet
Janet Carney Croom, Esquire
Board Certified - Construction Law
Board Certified - Business Litigation
Collins, Brown, Caldwell, Barkett & Garavaglia, Chartered
756 Beachland Boulevard
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Telephone: 772-231-4343
Fax: 772-234-5213
jcroom@verolaw.com blocked::mailto:jburgess@verolaw.com
http://www.verolaw.com blocked::mailto:www.cbc@verolaw.com
The information contained in this message is legally privileged and
confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender by via telephone, email, or the U.S.
Postal service at the address above, and destroy the message. Thank you.
Lee A. Weintraub
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
Emerald Lake Corporate Park
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-6525
954.985.4147 Phone
954.985.4176 Fax
LWeintraub@becker-poliakoff.com
http://www.becker-poliakoff.com
Our clients' total satisfaction is our #1 priority. The Becker &
Poliakoff
Client CARE Center is available for questions, concerns and suggestions.
Please contact us at 954.364.6090 or via email at
CARE@becker-poliakoff.com.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Weintraub, Lee
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:02 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien Law Query
If the material delivery is job specific, even if not shipped directly
to the job site, you need a release from the supplier. I would hold up
future payments to the sub until releases have been provided. I've had
situations before where contractors refused to provide releases and I
got them by drafting a dec action complaint (the contract didn't require
releases) saying 713.06's proper payment provisions contemplate
providing releases to the owner and the uncertainty about our
entitlement to demand releases supported a dec action. This has been a
fairly successful tactic, as everyone wants to avoid a lawsuit,
especially where the contractor can offer no legitimate explanation to
the court about why releases aren't being provided.
Click here http://www.floridaconstructionlawauthority.com/ to
subscribe to our complimentary Florida Construction Law Blog.
http://www.becker-poliakoff.com/ Lee A. Weintraub
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
Emerald Lake Corporate Park
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-6525
954.985.4147 Phone
954.985.4176 Fax
LWeintraub@becker-poliakoff.com
www.becker-poliakoff.com
Our clients' total satisfaction is our #1 priority. The Becker &
Poliakoff Client CARE Center is available for questions, concerns and
suggestions. Please contact us at 954.364.6090 or via email at
CARE@becker-poliakoff.com mailto:CARE@becker-poliakoff.com .
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Croom, Janet
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:54 AM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien Law Query
Query: Cautious GC wants to protect self/owner from material suppliers
claims. Subs request a deposit for materials they have to buy on a
project. GC wants release of lien from supplier. Some subs are
resisting furnishing a release of lien from supplier, either for deposit
or for full payment to suppliers. This issue comes up when suppliers,
in the ordinary course of business, do not ship material directly to a
specific job site at a specific address and do not have access to
information contained on a NOC. Ex: carpet supplier to flooring sub
who ships carpet to flooring sub under subcontractor order. I know the
basic law on this issue, but from a practical standpoint, are any of you
running into this type of issue, and if so, what resolution are you
working out for your GC/client? In compliance with WWAD?!, please email
me directly, and not "reply to all". Thanks!
Janet Carney Croom, Esquire
Board Certified - Construction Law
Board Certified - Business Litigation
Collins, Brown, Caldwell, Barkett & Garavaglia, Chartered
756 Beachland Boulevard
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Telephone: 772-231-4343
Fax: 772-234-5213
jcroom@verolaw.com blocked::mailto:jburgess@verolaw.com
http://www.verolaw.com blocked::mailto:www.cbc@verolaw.com
The information contained in this message is legally privileged and
confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender by via telephone, email, or the U.S.
Postal service at the address above, and destroy the message. Thank you.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
The lien would be "removed" from title 60 days after recording the
notice of contest. How about a strongly worded letter to the lienor
threatening slander of title liability? Although there is case law
holding no personal liability of the signer of the lien for fraudulent
lien, I believe that case is wrong and a strong argument (one on which
I've been successful before) can be made that there is liability. I
equally believe there could be personal liability for slander of title
by the signer. In my experience, most liens are released after receipt
of such a threat of legal exposure.
Go to http://www.floridaconstructionlawauthority.com/ to subscribe to our complimentary Florida Construction Law Blog.
Lee A. Weintraub
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
Emerald Lake Corporate Park
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-6525
954.985.4147 Phone
954.985.4176 Fax
LWeintraub@becker-poliakoff.com
http://www.becker-poliakoff.com
Our clients' total satisfaction is our #1 priority. The Becker & Poliakoff Client CARE Center is available for questions, concerns and suggestions. Please contact us at 954.364.6090 or via email at CARE@becker-poliakoff.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Justin Zinzow
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:44 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Notice of Contest of Lien issue
I would appreciate any feedback any members of the committee have the
time or inclination to provide on the following:
A construction lien was timely recorded and a lawsuit was timely filed.
However, just prior to a 57.105 hearing as to the frivolity of the lien
and foreclosure action, the lienor (through counsel) voluntarily
dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. The lien was never released
and demands for release have gone unanswered.
The propery owner would like to clear the lien as quickly and cheaply as
possible. Would a notice of contest of lien, if recorded now, be
effective to terminate the lien if a new lawsuit is not filed (or the
old one re-opened) within 60 days?
Justin R. Zinzow | Zinzow Law
Board Certified Construction Specialist
35111 U.S. Highway 19 N.
Suite 302
Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Ph: (727) 787-3121
Fax: (727) 787-3231
Website | Bio
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert
to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to
it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 727-787-3121 and delete
this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a
forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the
contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced
by the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding
tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax
opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to
avoid tax penalties, are not intended to be advice to avoid tax laws or
penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any
marketi!
ng or promotional materials.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
It seems to me that if your 57.105 safe harbor letter took issue with both the filing of the lawsuit as well as the lien itself you may be able to file your 57.105 motion now. That may get some quick action while at the same time filing the Notice of Contest
David B Mankuta, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law
dbm@atkinson-diner.com
www.atkinson-diner.com
Atkinson, Diner, Stone, Mankuta & Ploucha, P.A.
One Financial Plaza, Suite 1400
100 S.E. 3rd Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
Tel: (954) 925-5501
Fax: (954) 920-2711
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Justin Zinzow
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:44 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Notice of Contest of Lien issue
I would appreciate any feedback any members of the committee have the time or inclination to provide on the following:
A construction lien was timely recorded and a lawsuit was timely filed. However, just prior to a 57.105 hearing as to the frivolity of the lien and foreclosure action, the lienor (through counsel) voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. The lien was never released and demands for release have gone unanswered.
The propery owner would like to clear the lien as quickly and cheaply as possible. Would a notice of contest of lien, if recorded now, be effective to terminate the lien if a new lawsuit is not filed (or the old one re-opened) within 60 days?
Justin R. Zinzow | Zinzow Law
Board Certified Construction Specialist
35111 U.S. Highway 19 N.
Suite 302
Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Ph: (727) 787-3121
Fax: (727) 787-3231
Website | Bio
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 727-787-3121 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, are not intended to be advice to avoid tax laws or penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketi!
ng or promotional materials.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
Quickest way in your setting to clear title is to file a show cause
action pursuant to Fla. Stat. s. 713.21(4). Twenty days after service
(presuming that lienor fails to assert a counterclaim to foreclose
lien), you will be entitled to an order discharging the lien of record.
Michael R. Gibbons
Shareholder
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.
450 South Orange Avenue, 8th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407-418-6378
Fax: 407-843-4444
email: michael.gibbons@lowndes-law.com
website: http://www.lowndes-law.com
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Justin Zinzow
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:44 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Notice of Contest of Lien issue
I would appreciate any feedback any members of the committee have the
time or inclination to provide on the following:
A construction lien was timely recorded and a lawsuit was timely filed.
However, just prior to a 57.105 hearing as to the frivolity of the lien
and foreclosure action, the lienor (through counsel) voluntarily
dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. The lien was never released
and demands for release have gone unanswered.
The propery owner would like to clear the lien as quickly and cheaply as
possible. Would a notice of contest of lien, if recorded now, be
effective to terminate the lien if a new lawsuit is not filed (or the
old one re-opened) within 60 days?
Justin R. Zinzow | Zinzow Law
Board Certified Construction Specialist
35111 U.S. Highway 19 N.
Suite 302
Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Ph: (727) 787-3121
Fax: (727) 787-3231
Website | Bio
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert
to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to
it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 727-787-3121 and delete
this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a
forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the
contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced
by the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding
tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax
opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to
avoid tax penalties, are not intended to be advice to avoid tax laws or
penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any
marketi!
ng or promotional materials.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
This may be a simplistic question, but when does their one year run on the lien? If the time is close you may want to wait before stirring the pot again.
Charles P. Young, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law
Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, P.A.
30 South Spring Street
Pensacola, Florida 32502
850-433-6581
850-429-0492 (Fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David Mankuta
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:53 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Notice of Contest of Lien issue
It seems to me that if your 57.105 safe harbor letter took issue with both the filing of the lawsuit as well as the lien itself you may be able to file your 57.105 motion now. That may get some quick action while at the same time filing the Notice of Contest
David B Mankuta, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law
dbm@atkinson-diner.com
www.atkinson-diner.com
Atkinson, Diner, Stone, Mankuta & Ploucha, P.A.
One Financial Plaza, Suite 1400
100 S.E. 3rd Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
Tel: (954) 925-5501
Fax: (954) 920-2711
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Justin Zinzow
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:44 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Notice of Contest of Lien issue
I would appreciate any feedback any members of the committee have the time or inclination to provide on the following:
A construction lien was timely recorded and a lawsuit was timely filed. However, just prior to a 57.105 hearing as to the frivolity of the lien and foreclosure action, the lienor (through counsel) voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. The lien was never released and demands for release have gone unanswered.
The propery owner would like to clear the lien as quickly and cheaply as possible. Would a notice of contest of lien, if recorded now, be effective to terminate the lien if a new lawsuit is not filed (or the old one re-opened) within 60 days?
Justin R. Zinzow | Zinzow Law
Board Certified Construction Specialist
35111 U.S. Highway 19 N.
Suite 302
Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Ph: (727) 787-3121
Fax: (727) 787-3231
Website | Bio
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 727-787-3121 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, are not intended to be advice to avoid tax laws or penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketi!
ng or promotional materials.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
Bear Rule 1.525 in mind: "30 days after filing of a notice of dismissal"
G. Elliott
Gregory T. Elliott
ELLIOTT - BERGER, P. A.
10225 Ulmerton Road, Suite 4A
Largo, Florida 33771
(727) 360-2600 (Phone)
(727) 360-6588 (Fax)
Construction Law
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This message and its attachments are intended
solely for the use of the addressee. In addition, this message and the
attachments may contain information that is confidential, privileged and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing,
reproducing, distributing, disseminating or otherwise using this
transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended
recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have
received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply
E-mail and immediately delete this message from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Chuck
Young
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:59 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Notice of Contest of Lien issue
This may be a simplistic question, but when does their one year run on the
lien? If the time is close you may want to wait before stirring the pot
again.
Charles P. Young, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law
Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, P.A.
30 South Spring Street
Pensacola, Florida 32502
850-433-6581
850-429-0492 (Fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of David
Mankuta
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:53 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Notice of Contest of Lien issue
It seems to me that if your 57.105 safe harbor letter took issue with both
the filing of the lawsuit as well as the lien itself you may be able to file
your 57.105 motion now. That may get some quick action while at the same
time filing the Notice of Contest
David B Mankuta, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction
Law
dbm@atkinson-diner.com
www.atkinson-diner.com
Atkinson, Diner, Stone, Mankuta & Ploucha, P.A.
One Financial Plaza, Suite 1400
100 S.E. 3rd Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
Tel: (954) 925-5501
Fax: (954) 920-2711
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Justin
Zinzow
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:44 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Notice of Contest of Lien issue
I would appreciate any feedback any members of the committee have the time
or inclination to provide on the following:
A construction lien was timely recorded and a lawsuit was timely filed.
However, just prior to a 57.105 hearing as to the frivolity of the lien and
foreclosure action, the lienor (through counsel) voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit without prejudice. The lien was never released and demands for
release have gone unanswered.
The propery owner would like to clear the lien as quickly and cheaply as
possible. Would a notice of contest of lien, if recorded now, be effective
to terminate the lien if a new lawsuit is not filed (or the old one
re-opened) within 60 days?
Justin R. Zinzow | Zinzow Law
Board Certified Construction Specialist
35111 U.S. Highway 19 N.
Suite 302
Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Ph: (727) 787-3121
Fax: (727) 787-3231
Website | Bio
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard
copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return
e-mail or by telephone at 727-787-3121 and delete this message. Please note
that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a
prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any
attachments may not have been produced by the sender. Disclaimer under
Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including
any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied
upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, are not intended to be
advice to avoid tax laws or penalties, and are not intended to be used or
referred to in any marketi!
ng or promotional materials.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
When does the one year run to file? It may be more cost effective to
let it run. Lienor would have to refile under both scenarios: either
refile or file within 60 days of Notice of Contest. Also, if your
client has a direct contract with lienor with a prevailing party fee
provision, I believe you can get fees for the voluntary dismissal,
without the need to pursue it under the lien statute (i.e. regardless of
whether lienor refiles). Finally, your client still has a statutory
fraudulent lien claim and slander of title claim against the lienor.
Christine E. Lamia
Litigation Practice Group
Board Certified in Construction Law
Bryant
Miller
Olive
101 North Monroe St. Suite 900
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 222-8611
(850) 222-8969 (Fax)
clamia@bmolaw.com
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments),
unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties
under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: This e-mail message is intended only for the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential information and/or attachments that are legally privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, any review, use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by telephone and delete this message. Please note that
if this e-mail contains a forwarded message, an attachment, or is in
reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message
may not have been produced by Bryant Miller Olive P.A.
-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Justin Zinzow
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:44 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Notice of Contest of Lien issue
I would appreciate any feedback any members of the committee have the
time or inclination to provide on the following:
A construction lien was timely recorded and a lawsuit was timely filed.
However, just prior to a 57.105 hearing as to the frivolity of the lien
and foreclosure action, the lienor (through counsel) voluntarily
dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. The lien was never released
and demands for release have gone unanswered.
The propery owner would like to clear the lien as quickly and cheaply as
possible. Would a notice of contest of lien, if recorded now, be
effective to terminate the lien if a new lawsuit is not filed (or the
old one re-opened) within 60 days?
Justin R. Zinzow | Zinzow Law
Board Certified Construction Specialist
35111 U.S. Highway 19 N.
Suite 302
Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Ph: (727) 787-3121
Fax: (727) 787-3231
Website | Bio
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert
to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to
it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 727-787-3121 and delete
this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a
forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the
contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced
by the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding
tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax
opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to
avoid tax penalties, are not intended to be advice to avoid tax laws or
penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any
marketi!
ng or promotional materials.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw