Bond claim issue
Wow. He may rescind his request to be deleted from the list.
FREDERICK C. BARNES, ESQ.
500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 305
Maitland, Florida 32751
Telephone: 407-865-9200
Facsimile: 407-865-9209
mailto:www.fcbarneslaw.com www.fcbarneslaw.com
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jim McCrae
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:38 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Lien issue with public entity
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
http://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=361 V Card | http://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=361 Bio | http://www.akerman.com/361 akerman.com
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)
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
mailto:bkpa1@aol.com bkpa1@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Reese J. Henderson, Jr. < mailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com>
To: RPPTL constructionlaw < mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org 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: mailto:Reese.Henderson@gray-robinson.com 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: mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org 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: mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org 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
mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com 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
mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org 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
I have a CBC applicant looking to hire someone immediately file a motion for
reconsideration that would be heard in Daytona. Any Daytona/Orlando folks
interested please email me direct at sechrest@fbswlaw.com or call me at the
number below.
Please contact me directly and don't reply to the listserve.*
*-Just tryin' to spread the love, guys. Please don't be haters if someone
accidentally replies. Yes, you Jeff Price. You mean-spirited bully.
Michael D. Sechrest
Actor/Model (and Board Certified Construction Lawyer)
Fisher, Butts, Sechrest & Warner, PA
5200 SW 91st Terrace, 101
Gainesville, FL 32608
(352)-373-5922
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY NOTICE Information transmitted by this email is
proprietary and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is private,
privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you are not the intended recipient or it appears that this mail has been
forwarded to you without proper authority, you are notified that any use or
dissemination of this information in any manner is strictly prohibited. In
such cases, please delete this mail from your records. No waiver of
attorney-client privilege is intended under any circumstances.
My offices are located in Daytona Beach.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CD1CB6.2665E510]
[cid:image002.jpg@01CD1CB6.2665E510]
1651 N. Clyde Morris Blvd. #2
Daytona Beach, FL 32117
Tel: (386)310-7997
Cell: (386)566-1899
Fax: (386) 478-4425
ekistemaker@e-kbusinesslaw.commailto:certl@e-kbusinesslaw.com
www.e-kbusinesslaw.comhttp://www.e-kbusinesslaw.com/
Like Us On Facebook! http://www.facebook.com/#!/ekbusinesslaw
CONFIDENTIAL
The information contained in this e-mail transmission and any attachments thereto is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this transmission is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments.
[cid:image003.jpg@01CD1CB6.2665E510]please consider the environment before printing this email [cid:image003.jpg@01CD1CB6.2665E510]
From: Michael D. Sechrest [mailto:sechrest@fbswlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:47 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Referra / CILB Issue
I have a CBC applicant looking to hire someone immediately file a motion for reconsideration that would be heard in Daytona. Any Daytona/Orlando folks interested please email me direct at sechrest@fbswlaw.commailto:sechrest@fbswlaw.com or call me at the number below.
Please contact me directly and don't reply to the listserve.*
*-Just tryin' to spread the love, guys. Please don't be haters if someone accidentally replies. Yes, you Jeff Price. You mean-spirited bully.
Michael D. Sechrest
Actor/Model (and Board Certified Construction Lawyer)
Fisher, Butts, Sechrest & Warner, PA
5200 SW 91st Terrace, 101
Gainesville, FL 32608
(352)-373-5922
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY NOTICE Information transmitted by this email is proprietary and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is private, privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or it appears that this mail has been forwarded to you without proper authority, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this information in any manner is strictly prohibited. In such cases, please delete this mail from your records. No waiver of attorney-client privilege is intended under any circumstances.
Folks, please do remember to reply directly to the sender and not to the entire listserv.*
Hardy
hroberts@carltonfields.commailto:hroberts@carltonfields.com
*not being a hater, just remindin' .... It will take us awhile to develop a new habit
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Erum Kistemaker
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:22 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Referra / CILB Issue
My offices are located in Daytona Beach.
[Description: ESK SIGNATURE]
[Description: SpelledOut_Logo_final]
1651 N. Clyde Morris Blvd. #2
Daytona Beach, FL 32117
Tel: (386)310-7997
Cell: (386)566-1899
Fax: (386) 478-4425
ekistemaker@e-kbusinesslaw.commailto:certl@e-kbusinesslaw.com
www.e-kbusinesslaw.comhttp://www.e-kbusinesslaw.com/
Like Us On Facebook! http://www.facebook.com/#!/ekbusinesslaw
CONFIDENTIAL
The information contained in this e-mail transmission and any attachments thereto is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this transmission is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments.
[Description: http://visionsfortomorrow.net/pics/Visions-for-a-more-environmentally-friendly-tomorrow-2.jpg]please consider the environment before printing this email [Description: http://visionsfortomorrow.net/pics/Visions-for-a-more-environmentally-friendly-tomorrow-2.jpg]
From: Michael D. Sechrest [mailto:sechrest@fbswlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:47 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Referra / CILB Issue
I have a CBC applicant looking to hire someone immediately file a motion for reconsideration that would be heard in Daytona. Any Daytona/Orlando folks interested please email me direct at sechrest@fbswlaw.commailto:sechrest@fbswlaw.com or call me at the number below.
Please contact me directly and don't reply to the listserve.*
*-Just tryin' to spread the love, guys. Please don't be haters if someone accidentally replies. Yes, you Jeff Price. You mean-spirited bully.
Michael D. Sechrest
Actor/Model (and Board Certified Construction Lawyer)
Fisher, Butts, Sechrest & Warner, PA
5200 SW 91st Terrace, 101
Gainesville, FL 32608
(352)-373-5922
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY NOTICE Information transmitted by this email is proprietary and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is private, privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or it appears that this mail has been forwarded to you without proper authority, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this information in any manner is strictly prohibited. In such cases, please delete this mail from your records. No waiver of attorney-client privilege is intended under any circumstances.
Does anyone have a set they are willing to share?
Also, can anyone identify a case stating that an owner is not entitled
to a "perfect" building?
Thanks.
The Construction Law Committee prepared a standard set of jury
instructions. Gary Brown chaired the subcommittee that did that work
and you can likely get a set from him.
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
Fitzsimmons, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:09 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw; jim@mccraelaw.com
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Construction Defect jury
instructions
Does anyone have a set they are willing to share?
Also, can anyone identify a case stating that an owner is not entitled
to a "perfect" building?
Thanks.
See Chapter 17 "Jury Instructions in Construction Cases", Florida Construction Law and Practice (Florida Bar CLE), Sixth Edition (2011).
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Weintraub, Lee
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:12 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw; jim@mccraelaw.com
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Construction Defect jury instructions
The Construction Law Committee prepared a standard set of jury instructions. Gary Brown chaired the subcommittee that did that work and you can likely get a set from him.
[cid:~WRD000.jpg]
Lee A. Weintraub
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Emerald Lake Corporate Park
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-6525
954.985.4147 Phone
954.985.4176 Fax
LWeintraub@becker-poliakoff.com
www.becker-poliakoff.comhttp://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.commailto:CARE@becker-poliakoff.com.
Click herehttp://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 Fitzsimmons, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:09 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw; jim@mccraelaw.com
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Construction Defect jury instructions
Does anyone have a set they are willing to share?
Also, can anyone identify a case stating that an owner is not entitled to a "perfect" building?
Thanks.
Go to Page 538 of the 11th Circuits Model Civil Jury Instructions http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/documents/pdfs/civjury.pdf
Sincerely yours,
Randall Gilbert, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CD1D61.0AD86740][cid:image002.gif@01CD1D61.0AD86740]
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of S. LaRue Williams
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:34 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw; jim@mccraelaw.com
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] [RPPTL-construction law] Construction Defect jury instructions
See Chapter 17 "Jury Instructions in Construction Cases", Florida Construction Law and Practice (Florida Bar CLE), Sixth Edition (2011).
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Weintraub, Lee
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:12 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw; jim@mccraelaw.com
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Construction Defect jury instructions
The Construction Law Committee prepared a standard set of jury instructions. Gary Brown chaired the subcommittee that did that work and you can likely get a set from him.
[cid:image003.jpg@01CD1D61.0AD86740]
Lee A. Weintraub
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Emerald Lake Corporate Park
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-6525
954.985.4147 Phone
954.985.4176 Fax
LWeintraub@becker-poliakoff.com
www.becker-poliakoff.comhttp://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.commailto:CARE@becker-poliakoff.com.
Click herehttp://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 Fitzsimmons, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:09 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw; jim@mccraelaw.com
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Construction Defect jury instructions
Does anyone have a set they are willing to share?
Also, can anyone identify a case stating that an owner is not entitled to a "perfect" building?
Thanks.
These cites and summaries should help.
Substantial performance applies when actual performance is nearly equivalent
to what was bargained for, so that owner can use the property for the
intended purpose. J. M. Beeson Co. v. Sartori, 553 So.2d 180 (Fla 4 DCA
1989); Strategic Resources Group, Inc. v. Knight Ridder, Inc., 870 So.2d 846
(Fla 3 DCA 2003); Waters v. International Precious Metals Corp., 273 F3d
1273 (11th Cir 2001).
Casa Linda Tile & Marble Installers, Inc. v. Highlands Place 1981, Ltd., 642
So.2d 766 (Fla. 4 DCA 1994). The DCA noted that where a contractor has
substantially performed and otherwise complied with the construction lien
statute, it is entitled to award on its mechanic's lien claim for the
contract price less all damages caused by its failure to render full
performance. Substantial performance is defined as that performance of a
contract which while not full performance is so nearly equivalent to what
was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the
full contract price subject to the promisor's right to recover whatever
damages may have been occasioned him by the promisor's failure to render
full performance.
Kenmark Construction, Inc. v. Michael Cronin, 765 So.2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA
2000). The contractor sued the owner for foreclosure of a construction
lien. The owner counterclaimed seeking damages for breach of contract. The
trial court stated it doubted whether the contractor built the house in a
proper and workmanlike manner or that the owner would be able to use the
house in the way he wanted. Nevertheless, the trial court entered judgment
of foreclosure in favor of the contractor. The trial court, however,
declined to award attorney's fees to either party. HELD: Reversed as to
denial of attorney's fees. It is well settled that judgment on a
construction lien requires a determination of substantial performance rather
than strict performance, citing Poranski v. Millings, 82 So.2d 675 (Fla.
1955). The trial judge's decision is consistent with a determination of
substantial performance and did not find a breach of contract by the
contractor.
Lockhart v. Worsham, 508 So.2d 411 (Fla 1 DCA 1987). Worsham, the general
contractor, was doing a kitchen and porch remodeling and installing a built
up roof. The cabinets were not sufficient deep and the dishwasher protruded
into the space where a drawer would otherwise open. The roof was to have
been 5 ply insulated, but the contractor installed only a 3 ply roof, with
no insulation. The trial court found that the contractor had breached the
contract, but that the contractor had attempted in good faith to correct the
items and its breach was not willful or intentional. Accordingly, the trial
court only awarded a nominal amount to cut a piece out of the drawer to
allow it to open despite the protruding dishwasher and simply allowed a
credit for the missing insulation. The home owner then appealed. HELD:
Reversed. While the trial court was correct in finding that the contract
was breached, it appears the trial court wrongfully intended to apply the
doctrine of substantial performance. However, that doctrine is applicable
only where a variance from the specifications of the contract is inadvertent
or unintentional and unimportant so that the work performed is substantially
what was bargained for. Under these facts the doctrine should not be
applied. The measure of damages accruing to the homeowner is the reasonable
cost of making the work conform to the contract.
The Lockhart holding reflects a view under prior law that residences were
exceptions to the substantial performance doctrine. That view is no longer
the law, and is tempered by the Economic Waste Doctrine, which applies to
situations where the cost of correcting the deficiencies is grossly
disproportionate to the value of the completed structure. In such
circumstances, the damages can be measured by the difference in value of the
structure contracted for and the structure received, as opposed to the cost
of correcting the deficiencies.
Grossman Holdings, Ltd v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1982). - house
built facing the wrong direction so owner didn't get the intended view.
Court held that "[f]or defective or unfinished construction, a plaintiff can
recover a judgment for either:
(1) The reasonable cost of construction and completion in accordance with
the contract,
if this is possible and does not involve unreasonable economic waste; or
(2) The difference between the value that the product contracted for would
have had and
the value of the performance that has been received by the plaintiff, if the
construction
and completion in accordance with the contract would involve unreasonable
economic
waste.
Aponte v. Exotic Pools, Inc., 699 So.2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Where the performance on a contract is defective, the proper measure of
damages is the reasonable cost of making the performed work conform to the
contract. This maxim is subject to the exception that, where construction in
accordance with the contract would involve unreasonable economic waste, the
measure of damage for defective construction is the difference between the
value of the item contracted for and the value of the performance
received.
Regards,
Lan White
(727) 797-5599
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Fitzsimmons, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:09 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw; jim@mccraelaw.com
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Construction Defect jury instructions
Does anyone have a set they are willing to share?
Also, can anyone identify a case stating that an owner is not entitled to a
"perfect" building?
Thanks.
Michael,
Thanks for referring the CBC applicant. Just to let you know, I filed a
motion for reconsideration that was heard and granted by the CILB on Friday.
FREDERICK C. BARNES, ESQ.
500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 305
Maitland, Florida 32751
Telephone: 407-865-9200
Facsimile: 407-865-9209
mailto:www.fcbarneslaw.com www.fcbarneslaw.com
From: Fred Barnes [mailto:Fred@fcbarneslaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:36 PM
To: 'sechrest@fbswlaw.com'
Subject: RE: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Referra / CILB Issue
I'm interested. I've done quite a bit of license related work.
FREDERICK C. BARNES, ESQ.
500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 305
Maitland, Florida 32751
Telephone: 407-865-9200
Facsimile: 407-865-9209
mailto:www.fcbarneslaw.com www.fcbarneslaw.com
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Michael
D. Sechrest
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:47 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Referra / CILB Issue
I have a CBC applicant looking to hire someone immediately file a motion for
reconsideration that would be heard in Daytona. Any Daytona/Orlando folks
interested please email me direct at sechrest@fbswlaw.com or call me at the
number below.
Please contact me directly and don't reply to the listserve.*
*-Just tryin' to spread the love, guys. Please don't be haters if someone
accidentally replies. Yes, you Jeff Price. You mean-spirited bully.
Michael D. Sechrest
Actor/Model (and Board Certified Construction Lawyer)
Fisher, Butts, Sechrest & Warner, PA
5200 SW 91st Terrace, 101
Gainesville, FL 32608
(352)-373-5922
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY NOTICE Information transmitted by this email is
proprietary and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is private,
privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you are not the intended recipient or it appears that this mail has been
forwarded to you without proper authority, you are notified that any use or
dissemination of this information in any manner is strictly prohibited. In
such cases, please delete this mail from your records. No waiver of
attorney-client privilege is intended under any circumstances.