Bond claim issue
ROFLMAO
David C. Agee, Esquire
REID & AGEE, PLLC
3633 26th Street West
Bradenton, FL 34205
Tel 941.756.8791
Fax 941.755.7311
Ask us about Real Estate and Estate Planning***********
The information transmitted in this email, including any attachments, is from Reid & Agee, PLLC and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. This electronic information is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender via telephone at (941) 756-8791 or reply email and delete the email and any attachments from any computer. Thank You.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To the extent that this message or any attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended to be used as or intended to constitute a "reliance opinion" under applicable Treasury Regulations, and accordingly this message or any attachment is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Please be assured that this policy does not reflect any decrease in the quality of services or the amount of thought that we put in our correspondence.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Ian Kravitz
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 6:50 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity[Scanned]
Alex,
We will clearly need more facts to be able to effectively respond. Where was your. List when the statement was made? What had transpired prior to that, etc?
Please advise so that your colleagues who may wish to assist you can do so.
Regards,
Ian Kravitz, Esquire
Malka & Kravitz, P.A.
1300 Sawgrass Corp Pkwy
Suite 100
Sunrise, FL 33323
Sent from my mobile device so please excuse any typos
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:31 PM, "Alex Morris" alex@ramlawyer.com wrote:
Dear Group-
I have asked in several kind ways to be removed from this list. None of the requests have had any apparent impact. I know several of you on the "list-serve" and you will find my engagement humorous because you know me. At any rate, and from this point forward, any email I receive from this distribution list will be responded to "Reply To All.". It will contain completely annoying queries and things that are completely non sequitur to your practice. That is because of the following:
1). I am a criminal defense attorney who handles some pretty "serious biz" in state and federal court. A good example would be death penalty cases and large scale federal narcotics conspiracies. These do not involve lien laws and things that are within your normal banter.
2). I have thrice asked to be removed from this list. Included in those communications has been the fact that my dad practices in the construction law realm, but I cannot receive emails on his behalf. I have a thriving practice of my own and cannot take responsibility for forwarding emails to him.
3). The stop-gap measure of "send it to a specified folder in your email" is unacceptable. I do not need the emails in the first instance. Thus, I don't need to deal with this.
4). I completely hate being a "horse's ass," but expecting me to enjoy 50 emails a day is insane!
5). Given the foregoing, I am going to ask all of you to remove me from your "string."
6). In the absence of your removal of my email address, I would love for a few people to help me out on an evidentiary question on the admissibility of my client's self serving hearsay statements when he/she spoke with the cops. There is some great case law out there which seems to indicate that I may be able to get it in under the "Rule of Completeness" and/or the "Best Evidence Rule" if the cop attributes inculpatory statements to my client. And, if you really care, it is an "in car video" from the patrol car that helps to prove my client's case.
So, I am going to look forward to a bunch of feedback or just simply being removed from EVERYONE's distribution list.
This is insane!!!!
Alex Morris (aka Robert A. Morris)
From: kim.ashby@akerman.com [mailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 05:29 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Glen Falls is actually the only true way past sovereign immunity because it was the Commissioners' surety which was the target and not the public servants. Larry L disagrees with me.
Kimberly A. Ashby
Board Certified in Appellate Law and Construction Law
Akerman Senterfitt | 420 South Orange Avenue | Suite 1200 | Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802
Dir: 407.419.8424 | Main: 407.423.4000 | Fax: 407.254.4229
kim.ashby@akerman.com
V Card <http://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=361> | Bio <http://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=361> | akerman.com <http://www.akerman.com/361>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
You used to be able to sue the individual commissioners on their fidelity surety bonds, but those bonds may have been repealed. See: Glen Falls ex rel. Governor.
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.com <mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com> | www.hklaw.com <http://www.hklaw.com/>
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Gregory Johansen [mailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 04:52 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
It’s a given that you can’t lien public property under Chapter 713 and that the public entity should require a payment bond but what if the public entity either 1 doesn’t require a bond for the work because it’s too small a job or 2 doesn’t require a bond even if the project should have a bond? Can sovereign immunity be waived? What’s the best practice to preserve subcontractor’s rights and pursue the claim?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
Gregory J. Johansen
Gregory J. Johansen P.A.
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando FL 32814
407-956-1050
407-514-2604 (fax)
gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we
inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
___________
NOTE: This e-mail is from Gregory J. Johansen, P.A., and is intended for the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Gregory J. Johansen, P.A. that you expect to be confidential.
If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Yes, but 255.05(2)(b) provides the form for a release of bond claim and 255.05(2)(f) provides:
A waiver that is not substantially similar to the forms in this subsection is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
I would argue that a release is a relinquishment of a known right and that a release of lien claims (which are non-existent because of governmental exemption from liens) is ineffective to waive the right to claim against the 255.05 bond.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Barry Kalmanson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
There is a statute on point.
Barry Kalmanson
bkpa1@aol.com <mailto:bkpa1@aol.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com <mailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com> >
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org> >
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Larry Leiby will have the site at his fingertips, but there is caselaw that says lien waivers are enforceable to waive rights against a payment bond.
Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com <mailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com>
GRAY | ROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> ] On Behalf Of Glenn T. Williams
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Any help with the following would be very appreciated:
Subcontractor signs progress payment release of lien rights in the form of Section 713.20(4) (after supplying all materials and performing all work). It’s a government project, there are no lien rights. Same Subcontractor has a bond claim for amounts unpaid (there is both a Section 255.05 bond and a subcontractor common law bond potentially applicable). Is the progress payment release of lien enforceable against Subcontractor to prevent Subcontractor from getting paid the unpaid subcontract amounts?
Thank you very much for your time, and I truly appreciate any help!
Glenn Todd Williams, Esq.
Attorney | Board Certified in Construction Law
Glenn Williams, P.A.
Angebilt Building - Downtown 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-926-4100
Facsimile: 407-926-4105
gtwlaw@ymail.com mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
_______________________________________________
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw>
****IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.****
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (�H&K�), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
_______________________________________________
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
My dad is Robert E. Morris and has been in the construction end for a long time. I got confused as being him, but I have no idea how my email was decided as "his.". My guess is that the Bar goofed. I'll do what I can to challenge you on questions!
From: Brian Bennett [mailto:bbennett@floridalawonline.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 06:40 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Wondering how you got on the list in the first place as I thought it was for members of the construction law committee only, but setting that aside I hope you get your wish and the list master (whoever that may be) removes your email. If not, I guess we will all enjoy some criminal law queries.
Brian W. Bennett
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Page, Eichenblatt, Bernbaum & Bennett,P.A.
214 E. Lucerne Circle
Orlando, Florida 32801
Phone (407) 386-1900
Fax (407) 386-1901
The information contained in this electronic mail message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (407) 386-1900 or reply email and delete this message.
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:26 PM, "Alex Morris" <alex@ramlawyer.commailto:alex@ramlawyer.com> wrote:
Dear Group-
I have asked in several kind ways to be removed from this list. None of the requests have had any apparent impact. I know several of you on the "list-serve" and you will find my engagement humorous because you know me. At any rate, and from this point forward, any email I receive from this distribution list will be responded to "Reply To All.". It will contain completely annoying queries and things that are completely non sequitur to your practice. That is because of the following:
1). I am a criminal defense attorney who handles some pretty "serious biz" in state and federal court. A good example would be death penalty cases and large scale federal narcotics conspiracies. These do not involve lien laws and things that are within your normal banter.
2). I have thrice asked to be removed from this list. Included in those communications has been the fact that my dad practices in the construction law realm, but I cannot receive emails on his behalf. I have a thriving practice of my own and cannot take responsibility for forwarding emails to him.
3). The stop-gap measure of "send it to a specified folder in your email" is unacceptable. I do not need the emails in the first instance. Thus, I don't need to deal with this.
4). I completely hate being a "horse's ass," but expecting me to enjoy 50 emails a day is insane!
5). Given the foregoing, I am going to ask all of you to remove me from your "string."
6). In the absence of your removal of my email address, I would love for a few people to help me out on an evidentiary question on the admissibility of my client's self serving hearsay statements when he/she spoke with the cops. There is some great case law out there which seems to indicate that I may be able to get it in under the "Rule of Completeness" and/or the "Best Evidence Rule" if the cop attributes inculpatory statements to my client. And, if you really care, it is an "in car video" from the patrol car that helps to prove my client's case.
So, I am going to look forward to a bunch of feedback or just simply being removed from EVERYONE's distribution list.
This is insane!!!!
Alex Morris (aka Robert A. Morris)
From: kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com [mailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 05:29 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Glen Falls is actually the only true way past sovereign immunity because it was the Commissioners' surety which was the target and not the public servants. Larry L disagrees with me.
Kimberly A. Ashby
Board Certified in Appellate Law and Construction Law
Akerman Senterfitt | 420 South Orange Avenue | Suite 1200 | Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802
Dir: 407.419.8424 | Main: 407.423.4000 | Fax: 407.254.4229
kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com
V Cardhttp://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=361 | Biohttp://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=361 | akerman.comhttp://www.akerman.com/361
[http://www.akerman.com/akermanlogo4.gif]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
You used to be able to sue the individual commissioners on their fidelity surety bonds, but those bonds may have been repealed. See: Glen Falls ex rel. Governor.
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com http://www.hklaw.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Gregory Johansen [mailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 04:52 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
It’s a given that you can’t lien public property under Chapter 713 and that the public entity should require a payment bond but what if the public entity either 1 doesn’t require a bond for the work because it’s too small a job or 2 doesn’t require a bond even if the project should have a bond? Can sovereign immunity be waived? What’s the best practice to preserve subcontractor’s rights and pursue the claim?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
Gregory J. Johansen
Gregory J. Johansen P.A.
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando FL 32814
407-956-1050
407-514-2604 (fax)
gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.commailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we
inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
NOTE: This e-mail is from Gregory J. Johansen, P.A., and is intended for the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Gregory J. Johansen, P.A. that you expect to be confidential.
If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Yes, but 255.05(2)(b) provides the form for a release of bond claim and 255.05(2)(f) provides:
A waiver that is not substantially similar to the forms in this subsection is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
I would argue that a release is a relinquishment of a known right and that a release of lien claims (which are non-existent because of governmental exemption from liens) is ineffective to waive the right to claim against the 255.05 bond.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Barry Kalmanson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
There is a statute on point.
Barry Kalmanson
bkpa1@aol.commailto:bkpa1@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com>
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Larry Leiby will have the site at his fingertips, but there is caselaw that says lien waivers are enforceable to waive rights against a payment bond.
Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com
GRAY | ROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Glenn T. Williams
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Any help with the following would be very appreciated:
Subcontractor signs progress payment release of lien rights in the form of Section 713.20(4) (after supplying all materials and performing all work). It’s a government project, there are no lien rights. Same Subcontractor has a bond claim for amounts unpaid (there is both a Section 255.05 bond and a subcontractor common law bond potentially applicable). Is the progress payment release of lien enforceable against Subcontractor to prevent Subcontractor from getting paid the unpaid subcontract amounts?
Thank you very much for your time, and I truly appreciate any help!
Glenn Todd Williams, Esq.
Attorney | Board Certified in Construction Law
Glenn Williams, P.A.
Angebilt Building - Downtown 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-926-4100
Facsimile: 407-926-4105
gtwlaw@ymail.commailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (�H&K�), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
I love it, but won't bore everyone with the details. It is actually a true question, but I think I already have the answer. Gotta love a good bar fight among women "sticking each other" with a bottle.
From: Ian Kravitz [mailto:Ian@mkpalaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 06:49 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Alex,
We will clearly need more facts to be able to effectively respond. Where was your. List when the statement was made? What had transpired prior to that, etc?
Please advise so that your colleagues who may wish to assist you can do so.
Regards,
Ian Kravitz, Esquire
Malka & Kravitz, P.A.
1300 Sawgrass Corp Pkwy
Suite 100
Sunrise, FL 33323
Sent from my mobile device so please excuse any typos
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:31 PM, "Alex Morris" <alex@ramlawyer.commailto:alex@ramlawyer.com> wrote:
Dear Group-
I have asked in several kind ways to be removed from this list. None of the requests have had any apparent impact. I know several of you on the "list-serve" and you will find my engagement humorous because you know me. At any rate, and from this point forward, any email I receive from this distribution list will be responded to "Reply To All.". It will contain completely annoying queries and things that are completely non sequitur to your practice. That is because of the following:
1). I am a criminal defense attorney who handles some pretty "serious biz" in state and federal court. A good example would be death penalty cases and large scale federal narcotics conspiracies. These do not involve lien laws and things that are within your normal banter.
2). I have thrice asked to be removed from this list. Included in those communications has been the fact that my dad practices in the construction law realm, but I cannot receive emails on his behalf. I have a thriving practice of my own and cannot take responsibility for forwarding emails to him.
3). The stop-gap measure of "send it to a specified folder in your email" is unacceptable. I do not need the emails in the first instance. Thus, I don't need to deal with this.
4). I completely hate being a "horse's ass," but expecting me to enjoy 50 emails a day is insane!
5). Given the foregoing, I am going to ask all of you to remove me from your "string."
6). In the absence of your removal of my email address, I would love for a few people to help me out on an evidentiary question on the admissibility of my client's self serving hearsay statements when he/she spoke with the cops. There is some great case law out there which seems to indicate that I may be able to get it in under the "Rule of Completeness" and/or the "Best Evidence Rule" if the cop attributes inculpatory statements to my client. And, if you really care, it is an "in car video" from the patrol car that helps to prove my client's case.
So, I am going to look forward to a bunch of feedback or just simply being removed from EVERYONE's distribution list.
This is insane!!!!
Alex Morris (aka Robert A. Morris)
From: kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com [mailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 05:29 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Glen Falls is actually the only true way past sovereign immunity because it was the Commissioners' surety which was the target and not the public servants. Larry L disagrees with me.
Kimberly A. Ashby
Board Certified in Appellate Law and Construction Law
Akerman Senterfitt | 420 South Orange Avenue | Suite 1200 | Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802
Dir: 407.419.8424 | Main: 407.423.4000 | Fax: 407.254.4229
kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com
V Cardhttp://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=361 | Biohttp://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=361 | akerman.comhttp://www.akerman.com/361
[http://www.akerman.com/akermanlogo4.gif]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
You used to be able to sue the individual commissioners on their fidelity surety bonds, but those bonds may have been repealed. See: Glen Falls ex rel. Governor.
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com http://www.hklaw.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Gregory Johansen [mailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 04:52 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
It’s a given that you can’t lien public property under Chapter 713 and that the public entity should require a payment bond but what if the public entity either 1 doesn’t require a bond for the work because it’s too small a job or 2 doesn’t require a bond even if the project should have a bond? Can sovereign immunity be waived? What’s the best practice to preserve subcontractor’s rights and pursue the claim?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
Gregory J. Johansen
Gregory J. Johansen P.A.
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando FL 32814
407-956-1050
407-514-2604 (fax)
gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.commailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we
inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
NOTE: This e-mail is from Gregory J. Johansen, P.A., and is intended for the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Gregory J. Johansen, P.A. that you expect to be confidential.
If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Yes, but 255.05(2)(b) provides the form for a release of bond claim and 255.05(2)(f) provides:
A waiver that is not substantially similar to the forms in this subsection is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
I would argue that a release is a relinquishment of a known right and that a release of lien claims (which are non-existent because of governmental exemption from liens) is ineffective to waive the right to claim against the 255.05 bond.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Barry Kalmanson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
There is a statute on point.
Barry Kalmanson
bkpa1@aol.commailto:bkpa1@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com>
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Larry Leiby will have the site at his fingertips, but there is caselaw that says lien waivers are enforceable to waive rights against a payment bond.
Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com
GRAY | ROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Glenn T. Williams
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Any help with the following would be very appreciated:
Subcontractor signs progress payment release of lien rights in the form of Section 713.20(4) (after supplying all materials and performing all work). It’s a government project, there are no lien rights. Same Subcontractor has a bond claim for amounts unpaid (there is both a Section 255.05 bond and a subcontractor common law bond potentially applicable). Is the progress payment release of lien enforceable against Subcontractor to prevent Subcontractor from getting paid the unpaid subcontract amounts?
Thank you very much for your time, and I truly appreciate any help!
Glenn Todd Williams, Esq.
Attorney | Board Certified in Construction Law
Glenn Williams, P.A.
Angebilt Building - Downtown 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-926-4100
Facsimile: 407-926-4105
gtwlaw@ymail.commailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (�H&K�), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
If anyone needs the "in car video" I can send it as an attachment. There is profanity involved, but that's what I roll with......
From: David C. Agee [mailto:dagee@reidagee.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 07:22 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity[Scanned]
ROFLMAO
David C. Agee, Esquire
REID & AGEE, PLLC
3633 26th Street West
Bradenton, FL 34205
Tel 941.756.8791
Fax 941.755.7311
Ask us about Real Estate and Estate Planning***********
The information transmitted in this email, including any attachments, is from Reid & Agee, PLLC and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. This electronic information is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender via telephone at (941) 756-8791 or reply email and delete the email and any attachments from any computer. Thank You.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To the extent that this message or any attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended to be used as or intended to constitute a "reliance opinion" under applicable Treasury Regulations, and accordingly this message or any attachment is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Please be assured that this policy does not reflect any decrease in the quality of services or the amount of thought that we put in our correspondence.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Ian Kravitz
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 6:50 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity[Scanned]
Alex,
We will clearly need more facts to be able to effectively respond. Where was your. List when the statement was made? What had transpired prior to that, etc?
Please advise so that your colleagues who may wish to assist you can do so.
Regards,
Ian Kravitz, Esquire
Malka & Kravitz, P.A.
1300 Sawgrass Corp Pkwy
Suite 100
Sunrise, FL 33323
Sent from my mobile device so please excuse any typos
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:31 PM, "Alex Morris" <alex@ramlawyer.commailto:alex@ramlawyer.com> wrote:
Dear Group-
I have asked in several kind ways to be removed from this list. None of the requests have had any apparent impact. I know several of you on the "list-serve" and you will find my engagement humorous because you know me. At any rate, and from this point forward, any email I receive from this distribution list will be responded to "Reply To All.". It will contain completely annoying queries and things that are completely non sequitur to your practice. That is because of the following:
1). I am a criminal defense attorney who handles some pretty "serious biz" in state and federal court. A good example would be death penalty cases and large scale federal narcotics conspiracies. These do not involve lien laws and things that are within your normal banter.
2). I have thrice asked to be removed from this list. Included in those communications has been the fact that my dad practices in the construction law realm, but I cannot receive emails on his behalf. I have a thriving practice of my own and cannot take responsibility for forwarding emails to him.
3). The stop-gap measure of "send it to a specified folder in your email" is unacceptable. I do not need the emails in the first instance. Thus, I don't need to deal with this.
4). I completely hate being a "horse's ass," but expecting me to enjoy 50 emails a day is insane!
5). Given the foregoing, I am going to ask all of you to remove me from your "string."
6). In the absence of your removal of my email address, I would love for a few people to help me out on an evidentiary question on the admissibility of my client's self serving hearsay statements when he/she spoke with the cops. There is some great case law out there which seems to indicate that I may be able to get it in under the "Rule of Completeness" and/or the "Best Evidence Rule" if the cop attributes inculpatory statements to my client. And, if you really care, it is an "in car video" from the patrol car that helps to prove my client's case.
So, I am going to look forward to a bunch of feedback or just simply being removed from EVERYONE's distribution list.
This is insane!!!!
Alex Morris (aka Robert A. Morris)
From: kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com [mailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 05:29 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Glen Falls is actually the only true way past sovereign immunity because it was the Commissioners' surety which was the target and not the public servants. Larry L disagrees with me.
Kimberly A. Ashby
Board Certified in Appellate Law and Construction Law
Akerman Senterfitt | 420 South Orange Avenue | Suite 1200 | Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802
Dir: 407.419.8424 | Main: 407.423.4000 | Fax: 407.254.4229
kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com
V Cardhttp://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=361 | Biohttp://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=361 | akerman.comhttp://www.akerman.com/361
[Image removed by sender.]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
You used to be able to sue the individual commissioners on their fidelity surety bonds, but those bonds may have been repealed. See: Glen Falls ex rel. Governor.
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com http://www.hklaw.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Gregory Johansen [mailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 04:52 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
It’s a given that you can’t lien public property under Chapter 713 and that the public entity should require a payment bond but what if the public entity either 1 doesn’t require a bond for the work because it’s too small a job or 2 doesn’t require a bond even if the project should have a bond? Can sovereign immunity be waived? What’s the best practice to preserve subcontractor’s rights and pursue the claim?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
Gregory J. Johansen
Gregory J. Johansen P.A.
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando FL 32814
407-956-1050
407-514-2604 (fax)
gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.commailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we
inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
NOTE: This e-mail is from Gregory J. Johansen, P.A., and is intended for the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Gregory J. Johansen, P.A. that you expect to be confidential.
If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Yes, but 255.05(2)(b) provides the form for a release of bond claim and 255.05(2)(f) provides:
A waiver that is not substantially similar to the forms in this subsection is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
I would argue that a release is a relinquishment of a known right and that a release of lien claims (which are non-existent because of governmental exemption from liens) is ineffective to waive the right to claim against the 255.05 bond.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Barry Kalmanson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
There is a statute on point.
Barry Kalmanson
bkpa1@aol.commailto:bkpa1@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com>
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Larry Leiby will have the site at his fingertips, but there is caselaw that says lien waivers are enforceable to waive rights against a payment bond.
Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com
GRAY | ROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Glenn T. Williams
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Any help with the following would be very appreciated:
Subcontractor signs progress payment release of lien rights in the form of Section 713.20(4) (after supplying all materials and performing all work). It’s a government project, there are no lien rights. Same Subcontractor has a bond claim for amounts unpaid (there is both a Section 255.05 bond and a subcontractor common law bond potentially applicable). Is the progress payment release of lien enforceable against Subcontractor to prevent Subcontractor from getting paid the unpaid subcontract amounts?
Thank you very much for your time, and I truly appreciate any help!
Glenn Todd Williams, Esq.
Attorney | Board Certified in Construction Law
Glenn Williams, P.A.
Angebilt Building - Downtown 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-926-4100
Facsimile: 407-926-4105
gtwlaw@ymail.commailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (�H&K�), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
As an aside, I coach soccer and am often just down the road from you at Pine Island. Maybe there was a reason for this madness!
From: Ian Kravitz [mailto:Ian@mkpalaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 06:49 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Alex,
We will clearly need more facts to be able to effectively respond. Where was your. List when the statement was made? What had transpired prior to that, etc?
Please advise so that your colleagues who may wish to assist you can do so.
Regards,
Ian Kravitz, Esquire
Malka & Kravitz, P.A.
1300 Sawgrass Corp Pkwy
Suite 100
Sunrise, FL 33323
Sent from my mobile device so please excuse any typos
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:31 PM, "Alex Morris" <alex@ramlawyer.commailto:alex@ramlawyer.com> wrote:
Dear Group-
I have asked in several kind ways to be removed from this list. None of the requests have had any apparent impact. I know several of you on the "list-serve" and you will find my engagement humorous because you know me. At any rate, and from this point forward, any email I receive from this distribution list will be responded to "Reply To All.". It will contain completely annoying queries and things that are completely non sequitur to your practice. That is because of the following:
1). I am a criminal defense attorney who handles some pretty "serious biz" in state and federal court. A good example would be death penalty cases and large scale federal narcotics conspiracies. These do not involve lien laws and things that are within your normal banter.
2). I have thrice asked to be removed from this list. Included in those communications has been the fact that my dad practices in the construction law realm, but I cannot receive emails on his behalf. I have a thriving practice of my own and cannot take responsibility for forwarding emails to him.
3). The stop-gap measure of "send it to a specified folder in your email" is unacceptable. I do not need the emails in the first instance. Thus, I don't need to deal with this.
4). I completely hate being a "horse's ass," but expecting me to enjoy 50 emails a day is insane!
5). Given the foregoing, I am going to ask all of you to remove me from your "string."
6). In the absence of your removal of my email address, I would love for a few people to help me out on an evidentiary question on the admissibility of my client's self serving hearsay statements when he/she spoke with the cops. There is some great case law out there which seems to indicate that I may be able to get it in under the "Rule of Completeness" and/or the "Best Evidence Rule" if the cop attributes inculpatory statements to my client. And, if you really care, it is an "in car video" from the patrol car that helps to prove my client's case.
So, I am going to look forward to a bunch of feedback or just simply being removed from EVERYONE's distribution list.
This is insane!!!!
Alex Morris (aka Robert A. Morris)
From: kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com [mailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 05:29 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Glen Falls is actually the only true way past sovereign immunity because it was the Commissioners' surety which was the target and not the public servants. Larry L disagrees with me.
Kimberly A. Ashby
Board Certified in Appellate Law and Construction Law
Akerman Senterfitt | 420 South Orange Avenue | Suite 1200 | Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802
Dir: 407.419.8424 | Main: 407.423.4000 | Fax: 407.254.4229
kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com
V Cardhttp://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=361 | Biohttp://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=361 | akerman.comhttp://www.akerman.com/361
[http://www.akerman.com/akermanlogo4.gif]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
You used to be able to sue the individual commissioners on their fidelity surety bonds, but those bonds may have been repealed. See: Glen Falls ex rel. Governor.
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com http://www.hklaw.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Gregory Johansen [mailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 04:52 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
It’s a given that you can’t lien public property under Chapter 713 and that the public entity should require a payment bond but what if the public entity either 1 doesn’t require a bond for the work because it’s too small a job or 2 doesn’t require a bond even if the project should have a bond? Can sovereign immunity be waived? What’s the best practice to preserve subcontractor’s rights and pursue the claim?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
Gregory J. Johansen
Gregory J. Johansen P.A.
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando FL 32814
407-956-1050
407-514-2604 (fax)
gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.commailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we
inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
NOTE: This e-mail is from Gregory J. Johansen, P.A., and is intended for the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Gregory J. Johansen, P.A. that you expect to be confidential.
If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Yes, but 255.05(2)(b) provides the form for a release of bond claim and 255.05(2)(f) provides:
A waiver that is not substantially similar to the forms in this subsection is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
I would argue that a release is a relinquishment of a known right and that a release of lien claims (which are non-existent because of governmental exemption from liens) is ineffective to waive the right to claim against the 255.05 bond.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Barry Kalmanson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
There is a statute on point.
Barry Kalmanson
bkpa1@aol.commailto:bkpa1@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com>
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Larry Leiby will have the site at his fingertips, but there is caselaw that says lien waivers are enforceable to waive rights against a payment bond.
Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com
GRAY | ROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Glenn T. Williams
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Any help with the following would be very appreciated:
Subcontractor signs progress payment release of lien rights in the form of Section 713.20(4) (after supplying all materials and performing all work). It’s a government project, there are no lien rights. Same Subcontractor has a bond claim for amounts unpaid (there is both a Section 255.05 bond and a subcontractor common law bond potentially applicable). Is the progress payment release of lien enforceable against Subcontractor to prevent Subcontractor from getting paid the unpaid subcontract amounts?
Thank you very much for your time, and I truly appreciate any help!
Glenn Todd Williams, Esq.
Attorney | Board Certified in Construction Law
Glenn Williams, P.A.
Angebilt Building - Downtown 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-926-4100
Facsimile: 407-926-4105
gtwlaw@ymail.commailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (�H&K�), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
Bill,
Please remove Mr. Morris from the listserv.
Thanks, Hardy
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:23 PM, "Alex Morris" <alex@ramlawyer.commailto:alex@ramlawyer.com> wrote:
Dear Group-
I have asked in several kind ways to be removed from this list. None of the requests have had any apparent impact. I know several of you on the "list-serve" and you will find my engagement humorous because you know me. At any rate, and from this point forward, any email I receive from this distribution list will be responded to "Reply To All.". It will contain completely annoying queries and things that are completely non sequitur to your practice. That is because of the following:
1). I am a criminal defense attorney who handles some pretty "serious biz" in state and federal court. A good example would be death penalty cases and large scale federal narcotics conspiracies. These do not involve lien laws and things that are within your normal banter.
2). I have thrice asked to be removed from this list. Included in those communications has been the fact that my dad practices in the construction law realm, but I cannot receive emails on his behalf. I have a thriving practice of my own and cannot take responsibility for forwarding emails to him.
3). The stop-gap measure of "send it to a specified folder in your email" is unacceptable. I do not need the emails in the first instance. Thus, I don't need to deal with this.
4). I completely hate being a "horse's ass," but expecting me to enjoy 50 emails a day is insane!
5). Given the foregoing, I am going to ask all of you to remove me from your "string."
6). In the absence of your removal of my email address, I would love for a few people to help me out on an evidentiary question on the admissibility of my client's self serving hearsay statements when he/she spoke with the cops. There is some great case law out there which seems to indicate that I may be able to get it in under the "Rule of Completeness" and/or the "Best Evidence Rule" if the cop attributes inculpatory statements to my client. And, if you really care, it is an "in car video" from the patrol car that helps to prove my client's case.
So, I am going to look forward to a bunch of feedback or just simply being removed from EVERYONE's distribution list.
This is insane!!!!
Alex Morris (aka Robert A. Morris)
From: kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com [mailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 05:29 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Glen Falls is actually the only true way past sovereign immunity because it was the Commissioners' surety which was the target and not the public servants. Larry L disagrees with me.
Kimberly A. Ashby
Board Certified in Appellate Law and Construction Law
Akerman Senterfitt | 420 South Orange Avenue | Suite 1200 | Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802
Dir: 407.419.8424 | Main: 407.423.4000 | Fax: 407.254.4229
kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com
V Cardhttp://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=361 | Biohttp://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=361 | akerman.comhttp://www.akerman.com/361
[http://www.akerman.com/akermanlogo4.gif]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
You used to be able to sue the individual commissioners on their fidelity surety bonds, but those bonds may have been repealed. See: Glen Falls ex rel. Governor.
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com http://www.hklaw.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Gregory Johansen [mailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 04:52 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
It’s a given that you can’t lien public property under Chapter 713 and that the public entity should require a payment bond but what if the public entity either 1 doesn’t require a bond for the work because it’s too small a job or 2 doesn’t require a bond even if the project should have a bond? Can sovereign immunity be waived? What’s the best practice to preserve subcontractor’s rights and pursue the claim?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
Gregory J. Johansen
Gregory J. Johansen P.A.
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando FL 32814
407-956-1050
407-514-2604 (fax)
gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.commailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we
inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
NOTE: This e-mail is from Gregory J. Johansen, P.A., and is intended for the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Gregory J. Johansen, P.A. that you expect to be confidential.
If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Yes, but 255.05(2)(b) provides the form for a release of bond claim and 255.05(2)(f) provides:
A waiver that is not substantially similar to the forms in this subsection is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
I would argue that a release is a relinquishment of a known right and that a release of lien claims (which are non-existent because of governmental exemption from liens) is ineffective to waive the right to claim against the 255.05 bond.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Barry Kalmanson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
There is a statute on point.
Barry Kalmanson
bkpa1@aol.commailto:bkpa1@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com>
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Larry Leiby will have the site at his fingertips, but there is caselaw that says lien waivers are enforceable to waive rights against a payment bond.
Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com
GRAY | ROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Glenn T. Williams
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Any help with the following would be very appreciated:
Subcontractor signs progress payment release of lien rights in the form of Section 713.20(4) (after supplying all materials and performing all work). It’s a government project, there are no lien rights. Same Subcontractor has a bond claim for amounts unpaid (there is both a Section 255.05 bond and a subcontractor common law bond potentially applicable). Is the progress payment release of lien enforceable against Subcontractor to prevent Subcontractor from getting paid the unpaid subcontract amounts?
Thank you very much for your time, and I truly appreciate any help!
Glenn Todd Williams, Esq.
Attorney | Board Certified in Construction Law
Glenn Williams, P.A.
Angebilt Building - Downtown 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-926-4100
Facsimile: 407-926-4105
gtwlaw@ymail.commailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (�H&K�), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
One thing to note is that it is true that the nut doesn't fall far from the tree. Say hello to your Dad for me.
You may be premature in conceding that your Client's statement is in fact hearsay. Does the statement include a description of facts and circumstances sufficient to bring it in as res gestae? What is the contemporaneous nature of the statement as related to the charges or the matter for which you seek its use? Does the statement describe or explain events or circumstances which are disputed or in question? The hearsay question may be creatively avoided depending upon the characterization of the statement and its desired use. Once its in, its in.
I would suggest to the Chief Judge that an appropriate standard for bond at first appearance on a charge of dealing in stolen property would be $5,000, not $15,000 because the standard is a simple begining point that can be changed to fit the circumstances of protection of the community, flight risk, affordability to the defendant, circumstances of the particular crime, etc. etc. as fit. Since the standard is simply a "one size fits all" time saving device for the Court it shouldn't be set artificially high or the Court will be deluged with time consuming reduction motions, on the other hand if its too low in a particular case then the State has the resources to seek a higher amount.
Jim McCrae
Law Office of Jim McCrae, P.A.
Lake Mary Professional Campus
1349 International Parkway South
Suite 2421
Lake Mary, FL 32746
Main 407 936 1570
Fax 407 936 1571
Email jim@mccraelaw.com
www.mccraelaw.com http://www.mccraelaw.com/
Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Construction Law
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Alex Morris
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:54 PM
To: 'constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
My dad is Robert E. Morris and has been in the construction end for a long time. I got confused as being him, but I have no idea how my email was decided as "his.". My guess is that the Bar goofed. I'll do what I can to challenge you on questions!
From: Brian Bennett [mailto:bbennett@floridalawonline.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 06:40 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Wondering how you got on the list in the first place as I thought it was for members of the construction law committee only, but setting that aside I hope you get your wish and the list master (whoever that may be) removes your email. If not, I guess we will all enjoy some criminal law queries.
Brian W. Bennett
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Page, Eichenblatt, Bernbaum & Bennett,P.A.
214 E. Lucerne Circle
Orlando, Florida 32801
Phone (407) 386-1900
Fax (407) 386-1901
The information contained in this electronic mail message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (407) 386-1900 or reply email and delete this message.
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:26 PM, "Alex Morris" alex@ramlawyer.com wrote:
Dear Group-
I have asked in several kind ways to be removed from this list. None of the requests have had any apparent impact. I know several of you on the "list-serve" and you will find my engagement humorous because you know me. At any rate, and from this point forward, any email I receive from this distribution list will be responded to "Reply To All.". It will contain completely annoying queries and things that are completely non sequitur to your practice. That is because of the following:
1). I am a criminal defense attorney who handles some pretty "serious biz" in state and federal court. A good example would be death penalty cases and large scale federal narcotics conspiracies. These do not involve lien laws and things that are within your normal banter.
2). I have thrice asked to be removed from this list. Included in those communications has been the fact that my dad practices in the construction law realm, but I cannot receive emails on his behalf. I have a thriving practice of my own and cannot take responsibility for forwarding emails to him.
3). The stop-gap measure of "send it to a specified folder in your email" is unacceptable. I do not need the emails in the first instance. Thus, I don't need to deal with this.
4). I completely hate being a "horse's ass," but expecting me to enjoy 50 emails a day is insane!
5). Given the foregoing, I am going to ask all of you to remove me from your "string."
6). In the absence of your removal of my email address, I would love for a few people to help me out on an evidentiary question on the admissibility of my client's self serving hearsay statements when he/she spoke with the cops. There is some great case law out there which seems to indicate that I may be able to get it in under the "Rule of Completeness" and/or the "Best Evidence Rule" if the cop attributes inculpatory statements to my client. And, if you really care, it is an "in car video" from the patrol car that helps to prove my client's case.
So, I am going to look forward to a bunch of feedback or just simply being removed from EVERYONE's distribution list.
This is insane!!!!
Alex Morris (aka Robert A. Morris)
From: kim.ashby@akerman.com [mailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 05:29 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Glen Falls is actually the only true way past sovereign immunity because it was the Commissioners' surety which was the target and not the public servants. Larry L disagrees with me.
Kimberly A. Ashby
Board Certified in Appellate Law and Construction Law
Akerman Senterfitt | 420 South Orange Avenue | Suite 1200 | Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802
Dir: 407.419.8424 | Main: 407.423.4000 | Fax: 407.254.4229
kim.ashby@akerman.com
V Card <http://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=361> | Bio <http://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=361> | akerman.com <http://www.akerman.com/361>
<http://www.akerman.com/akermanlogo4.gif>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
You used to be able to sue the individual commissioners on their fidelity surety bonds, but those bonds may have been repealed. See: Glen Falls ex rel. Governor.
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.com <mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com> | www.hklaw.com <http://www.hklaw.com/>
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Gregory Johansen [mailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 04:52 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
It’s a given that you can’t lien public property under Chapter 713 and that the public entity should require a payment bond but what if the public entity either 1 doesn’t require a bond for the work because it’s too small a job or 2 doesn’t require a bond even if the project should have a bond? Can sovereign immunity be waived? What’s the best practice to preserve subcontractor’s rights and pursue the claim?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
Gregory J. Johansen
Gregory J. Johansen P.A.
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando FL 32814
407-956-1050
407-514-2604 (fax)
gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we
inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
___________
NOTE: This e-mail is from Gregory J. Johansen, P.A., and is intended for the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Gregory J. Johansen, P.A. that you expect to be confidential.
If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Yes, but 255.05(2)(b) provides the form for a release of bond claim and 255.05(2)(f) provides:
A waiver that is not substantially similar to the forms in this subsection is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
I would argue that a release is a relinquishment of a known right and that a release of lien claims (which are non-existent because of governmental exemption from liens) is ineffective to waive the right to claim against the 255.05 bond.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Barry Kalmanson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
There is a statute on point.
Barry Kalmanson
bkpa1@aol.com <mailto:bkpa1@aol.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com <mailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com> >
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org> >
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Larry Leiby will have the site at his fingertips, but there is caselaw that says lien waivers are enforceable to waive rights against a payment bond.
Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com <mailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com>
GRAY | ROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> ] On Behalf Of Glenn T. Williams
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Any help with the following would be very appreciated:
Subcontractor signs progress payment release of lien rights in the form of Section 713.20(4) (after supplying all materials and performing all work). It’s a government project, there are no lien rights. Same Subcontractor has a bond claim for amounts unpaid (there is both a Section 255.05 bond and a subcontractor common law bond potentially applicable). Is the progress payment release of lien enforceable against Subcontractor to prevent Subcontractor from getting paid the unpaid subcontract amounts?
Thank you very much for your time, and I truly appreciate any help!
Glenn Todd Williams, Esq.
Attorney | Board Certified in Construction Law
Glenn Williams, P.A.
Angebilt Building - Downtown 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-926-4100
Facsimile: 407-926-4105
gtwlaw@ymail.com mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
_______________________________________________
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw>
****IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.****
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (�H&K�), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
_______________________________________________
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
Thanks Mr. Roberts. Hoping....
----- Original Message -----
From: Roberts, Hardy L. [mailto:hroberts@carltonfields.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 08:09 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Cc: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Bill,
Please remove Mr. Morris from the listserv.
Thanks, Hardy
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:23 PM, "Alex Morris" <alex@ramlawyer.commailto:alex@ramlawyer.com> wrote:
Dear Group-
I have asked in several kind ways to be removed from this list. None of the requests have had any apparent impact. I know several of you on the "list-serve" and you will find my engagement humorous because you know me. At any rate, and from this point forward, any email I receive from this distribution list will be responded to "Reply To All.". It will contain completely annoying queries and things that are completely non sequitur to your practice. That is because of the following:
1). I am a criminal defense attorney who handles some pretty "serious biz" in state and federal court. A good example would be death penalty cases and large scale federal narcotics conspiracies. These do not involve lien laws and things that are within your normal banter.
2). I have thrice asked to be removed from this list. Included in those communications has been the fact that my dad practices in the construction law realm, but I cannot receive emails on his behalf. I have a thriving practice of my own and cannot take responsibility for forwarding emails to him.
3). The stop-gap measure of "send it to a specified folder in your email" is unacceptable. I do not need the emails in the first instance. Thus, I don't need to deal with this.
4). I completely hate being a "horse's ass," but expecting me to enjoy 50 emails a day is insane!
5). Given the foregoing, I am going to ask all of you to remove me from your "string."
6). In the absence of your removal of my email address, I would love for a few people to help me out on an evidentiary question on the admissibility of my client's self serving hearsay statements when he/she spoke with the cops. There is some great case law out there which seems to indicate that I may be able to get it in under the "Rule of Completeness" and/or the "Best Evidence Rule" if the cop attributes inculpatory statements to my client. And, if you really care, it is an "in car video" from the patrol car that helps to prove my client's case.
So, I am going to look forward to a bunch of feedback or just simply being removed from EVERYONE's distribution list.
This is insane!!!!
Alex Morris (aka Robert A. Morris)
From: kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com [mailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 05:29 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Glen Falls is actually the only true way past sovereign immunity because it was the Commissioners' surety which was the target and not the public servants. Larry L disagrees with me.
Kimberly A. Ashby
Board Certified in Appellate Law and Construction Law
Akerman Senterfitt | 420 South Orange Avenue | Suite 1200 | Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802
Dir: 407.419.8424 | Main: 407.423.4000 | Fax: 407.254.4229
kim.ashby@akerman.commailto:kim.ashby@akerman.com
V Cardhttp://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=361 | Biohttp://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=361 | akerman.comhttp://www.akerman.com/361
[http://www.akerman.com/akermanlogo4.gif]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
You used to be able to sue the individual commissioners on their fidelity surety bonds, but those bonds may have been repealed. See: Glen Falls ex rel. Governor.
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com http://www.hklaw.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Gregory Johansen [mailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 04:52 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
It’s a given that you can’t lien public property under Chapter 713 and that the public entity should require a payment bond but what if the public entity either 1 doesn’t require a bond for the work because it’s too small a job or 2 doesn’t require a bond even if the project should have a bond? Can sovereign immunity be waived? What’s the best practice to preserve subcontractor’s rights and pursue the claim?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
Gregory J. Johansen
Gregory J. Johansen P.A.
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando FL 32814
407-956-1050
407-514-2604 (fax)
gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.commailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we
inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
NOTE: This e-mail is from Gregory J. Johansen, P.A., and is intended for the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Gregory J. Johansen, P.A. that you expect to be confidential.
If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Yes, but 255.05(2)(b) provides the form for a release of bond claim and 255.05(2)(f) provides:
A waiver that is not substantially similar to the forms in this subsection is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
I would argue that a release is a relinquishment of a known right and that a release of lien claims (which are non-existent because of governmental exemption from liens) is ineffective to waive the right to claim against the 255.05 bond.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Barry Kalmanson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
There is a statute on point.
Barry Kalmanson
bkpa1@aol.commailto:bkpa1@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com>
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Larry Leiby will have the site at his fingertips, but there is caselaw that says lien waivers are enforceable to waive rights against a payment bond.
Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com
GRAY | ROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Glenn T. Williams
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Any help with the following would be very appreciated:
Subcontractor signs progress payment release of lien rights in the form of Section 713.20(4) (after supplying all materials and performing all work). It’s a government project, there are no lien rights. Same Subcontractor has a bond claim for amounts unpaid (there is both a Section 255.05 bond and a subcontractor common law bond potentially applicable). Is the progress payment release of lien enforceable against Subcontractor to prevent Subcontractor from getting paid the unpaid subcontract amounts?
Thank you very much for your time, and I truly appreciate any help!
Glenn Todd Williams, Esq.
Attorney | Board Certified in Construction Law
Glenn Williams, P.A.
Angebilt Building - Downtown 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-926-4100
Facsimile: 407-926-4105
gtwlaw@ymail.commailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (�H&K�), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto: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
Under scenario 1 (too small), 255.05 allows a public owner to dispense
with the bond requirement without liability. Under scenario 2 (bond was
required by statute but not by the public owner), case law makes the
people on the public board personally liable.
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.
Go to http://www.floridaconstructionlawauthority.com/ to subscribe to our complimentary Florida Construction Law Blog.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Gregory Johansen
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:53 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
It's a given that you can't lien public property under Chapter 713 and
that the public entity should require a payment bond but what if the
public entity either 1 doesn't require a bond for the work because it's
too small a job or 2 doesn't require a bond even if the project should
have a bond? Can sovereign immunity be waived? What's the best practice
to preserve subcontractor's rights and pursue the claim?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
Gregory J. Johansen
Gregory J. Johansen P.A.
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando FL 32814
407-956-1050
407-514-2604 (fax)
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec.
10.35), we
inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not
intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or
anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the
Internal Revenue Code.
NOTE: This e-mail is from Gregory J. Johansen, P.A., and is intended for
the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or
disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything
in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific
statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Gregory J.
Johansen, P.A. that you expect to be confidential.
If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained
expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the
attorney-client or work product privilege.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Yes, but 255.05(2)(b) provides the form for a release of bond claim and
255.05(2)(f) provides:
A waiver that is not substantially similar to the forms in this
subsection is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
I would argue that a release is a relinquishment of a known right and
that a release of lien claims (which are non-existent because of
governmental exemption from liens) is ineffective to waive the right to
claim against the 255.05 bond.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Barry Kalmanson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
There is a statute on point.
Barry Kalmanson
bkpa1@aol.com mailto:bkpa1@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com
mailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com >
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org >
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Larry Leiby will have the site at his fingertips, but there is caselaw
that says lien waivers are enforceable to waive rights against a payment
bond.
Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com
mailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com
GRAY | ROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named
within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and
confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a
client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the
attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended
recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party,
that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might
constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we
apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete
the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail
message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship
with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any
marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector
and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be
used for that purpose.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org ] On Behalf Of
Glenn T. Williams
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Any help with the following would be very appreciated:
Subcontractor signs progress payment release of lien rights in the form
of Section 713.20(4) (after supplying all materials and performing all
work). It's a government project, there are no lien rights. Same
Subcontractor has a bond claim for amounts unpaid (there is both a
Section 255.05 bond and a subcontractor common law bond potentially
applicable). Is the progress payment release of lien enforceable
against Subcontractor to prevent Subcontractor from getting paid the
unpaid subcontract amounts?
Thank you very much for your time, and I truly appreciate any help!
Glenn Todd Williams, Esq.
Attorney | Board Certified in Construction Law
Glenn Williams, P.A.
Angebilt Building - Downtown 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-926-4100
Facsimile: 407-926-4105
gtwlaw@ymail.com mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the
use of the individual or entity named above and may contain
attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax
advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax
advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the
purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal
Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or
referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or
other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under
Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is
not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the
purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2)
the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the
transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the
taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
I fail to see how sovereign immunity applies at all in these cases (Glenn Falls), since the claim is based on contract, not on tort. In addition, that immunity is waived by statute up to $100,000/$200,000, so for those county-level contracts in which no bond is required under $200,000, the immunity may never apply anyway.
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com/
Add to address bookhttp://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=frdudley | View professional biographyhttp://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosfrdudley
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of kim.ashby@akerman.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:29 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
Glen Falls is actually the only true way past sovereign immunity because it was the Commissioners' surety which was the target and not the public servants. Larry L disagrees with me.
Kimberly A. Ashby
Board Certified in Appellate Law and Construction Law
Akerman Senterfitt | 420 South Orange Avenue | Suite 1200 | Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 231, Orlando, Florida 32802
Dir: 407.419.8424 | Main: 407.423.4000 | Fax: 407.254.4229
kim.ashby@akerman.com
V Cardhttp://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=361 | Biohttp://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=361 | akerman.comhttp://www.akerman.com/361
[Image removed by sender.]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
You used to be able to sue the individual commissioners on their fidelity surety bonds, but those bonds may have been repealed. See: Glen Falls ex rel. Governor.
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.com mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com http://www.hklaw.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Gregory Johansen [mailto:gregoryjohansen@gjjlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 04:52 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
It’s a given that you can’t lien public property under Chapter 713 and that the public entity should require a payment bond but what if the public entity either 1 doesn’t require a bond for the work because it’s too small a job or 2 doesn’t require a bond even if the project should have a bond? Can sovereign immunity be waived? What’s the best practice to preserve subcontractor’s rights and pursue the claim?
Thanks in advance.
Greg
Gregory J. Johansen
Gregory J. Johansen P.A.
4767 New Broad Street
Orlando FL 32814
407-956-1050
407-514-2604 (fax)
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we
inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
NOTE: This e-mail is from Gregory J. Johansen, P.A., and is intended for the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Gregory J. Johansen, P.A. that you expect to be confidential.
If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Yes, but 255.05(2)(b) provides the form for a release of bond claim and 255.05(2)(f) provides:
A waiver that is not substantially similar to the forms in this subsection is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
I would argue that a release is a relinquishment of a known right and that a release of lien claims (which are non-existent because of governmental exemption from liens) is ineffective to waive the right to claim against the 255.05 bond.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Barry Kalmanson
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
There is a statute on point.
Barry Kalmanson
bkpa1@aol.commailto:bkpa1@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. <Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com>
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Larry Leiby will have the site at his fingertips, but there is caselaw that says lien waivers are enforceable to waive rights against a payment bond.
Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.commailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com
GRAY | ROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Glenn T. Williams
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Bond claim issue
Any help with the following would be very appreciated:
Subcontractor signs progress payment release of lien rights in the form of Section 713.20(4) (after supplying all materials and performing all work). It’s a government project, there are no lien rights. Same Subcontractor has a bond claim for amounts unpaid (there is both a Section 255.05 bond and a subcontractor common law bond potentially applicable). Is the progress payment release of lien enforceable against Subcontractor to prevent Subcontractor from getting paid the unpaid subcontract amounts?
Thank you very much for your time, and I truly appreciate any help!
Glenn Todd Williams, Esq.
Attorney | Board Certified in Construction Law
Glenn Williams, P.A.
Angebilt Building - Downtown 37 N. Orange Ave, Suite 500
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-926-4100
Facsimile: 407-926-4105
gtwlaw@ymail.commailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (�H&K�), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
