I understand the concern. When it comes to requests for referrals and experts, I think those responses should be directed back to the recipient only. However, when a member asks a legal questions, I think it is beneficial to all that we exchange the ideas/responses with everyone. (My Italian grandmother was the only one I have known that knew everything, and she has long since passed.). The questions are generally not clear cut and frequently concern issues many of us face. As long as the subject line clearly lists the topic, it is very quick and easy to hit delete and free up the mailbox. Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. In a message dated 8/9/2011 11:10:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Leiby@mkpalaw.com writes: There have been complaints in the past about the time to review such communication when members feel that they are not interested in the topic. I also see the other educational point of view and defer to our chair, Herr Tritt, to establish policy. My prior understanding was that there was concern expressed by some members about being bombarded on a topic. There is also the issue that some members may respond privately if they are concerned about others seeing the response (for various reasons), which is an option at any time if the e-mail address is given (otherwise to be looked up). Perhaps the initial question (which obviously goes to the entire list) and any first responses (to go to the list), with further discussion on the issue being either: 1) public to all on the list, using discretion to not oversaturate. 2) limited to the people communicating person to person. Members can always choose the person to person communication. I thought that we had addressed this issue in the past but I don’t find any record of it. Herr Tritt? Executive decision or meeting agenda item? Larry R. Leiby, Esq. Malka & Kravitz, P.A. 1300 Sawgrass Corp. Pkwy., Suite 100 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33323 Phone: 954-514-0984 Fax: 954-514-0985 e-mail: leiby@mkpalaw.com Board Certified in Construction Law Certified Circuit Court Civil Mediator Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Eric Belsky Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:32 AM To: RPPTL constructionlaw Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien Personally, I enjoy reading these back-and-forth dialogues and really appreciate being included on the mailing list! The discussion is always lively and enlightening (even if purely academic) and on almost all occasions these exchanges tend to be pertinent to either something I’m working on, something I’ve got on the back-burner, or something likely to present itself in the future (which is why I save these discussions in my “Legal Research” folder for future reference). J Of course, if it’s something I genuinely have no interest in whatsoever, simply hitting the Delete button is no great hardship... Thanks! Leiter || Belsky Eric G. Belsky, Esq. Leiter & Belsky, P.A. Blackstone Building, Third Floor 707 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 954.462.3116 Telephone 954.761.8990 Facsimile _ebelsky@jlblaw.com_ (mailto:ebelsky@jlblaw.com) ____________________________________ From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Tom McKeel Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:08 AM To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien For what it is worth, I enjoy and benefit from the questions and answers. The reading is like a continuing CLE. ____________________________________ From: _constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org_ (mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org) _[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]_ (mailto:[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]) On Behalf Of Larry Leiby Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:34 PM To: RPPTL constructionlaw Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien Krista, I don’t think that you are crazy, but I think that the trial court was correct. In Hayutin the amended claim of lien was recorded more than 90 days after the date of last work recited in the amended claim of lien. You still may be able to argue that you are prejudiced by the amendment, if you can prove any prejudice. The lienor must still prove that it worked up to the date alleged in the amended claim of lien, which work was not warranty work. Suggestion: When you ask a question like this you should include your personal e-mail address so that responses need not go to all members of the committee. Larry R. Leiby, Esq. Malka & Kravitz, P.A. 1300 Sawgrass Corp. Pkwy., Suite 100 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33323 Phone: 954-514-0984 Fax: 954-514-0985 e-mail: _leiby@mkpalaw.com_ (mailto:leiby@mkpalaw.com) Board Certified in Construction Law Certified Circuit Court Civil Mediator Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators From: _constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org_ (mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org) _[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]_ (mailto:[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]) On Behalf Of Krista Brindle Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:14 PM To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien Hi all, I got a bad ruling this afternoon and I was wondering if any of you know of some awesome caselaw that is on point off the top of your head…here’s the facts: Plaintiff filed Claim of Lien on May 28, 2009, alleging the last work was done on March 4, 2009. Plaintiff filed an Amended Claim of Lien on April 7, 2010, alleging the last work was done on March 2, 2010, but specifically stating that it was being filed to amend the claim of lien from ’09. Plaintiff filed suit to foreclose the Amended Claim of Lien on March 30, 2011. We filed a Motion to Dismiss for the Defendant, stating that the Amended Claim of Lien was way too late, pursuant to §713.08(4)(b) and the case of Hayutin v. Cochran Const. Co., Inc. The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss stating that since the Plaintiff was amending the last date of work performed, and since the amended claim of lien was filed within 90 days of that new date, then it was timely. This seems to completely gut the statute and goes against the whole “ strictly construed creature of statute” claim of lien law that I had learned. Am I crazy and the Judge is right or is she off base and I should be filing a Motion for Rehearing as soon as I can? Thanks in advance for all your help, all you wonderful brilliant people! Krista L. Brindle, Esq. Andrew S. Epstein, P.A. 2120 McGregor Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Telephone: (239) 791-LAWS (5297) Facsimile: (239) 791-0100 Confidentiality: This e-mail communication is intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the addressee or an authorized representative, you are advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, or other dissemination or use of this communication or any information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately advise the sender either by reply e-mail or call at (239) 791-5297; delete this communication and destroy all physical copies. All e-mail communications are electronically filtered for "spam" and "viruses." Filtering may result in communications being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) or delayed in reaching us. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your e-mail or that we will receive it in a timely manner. Accordingly, important or time-sensitive communications should be sent to us by means other than e-mail. ____________________________________ _______________________________________________ constructionlaw mailing list constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw