Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
www.dangreenelaw.com
dan@dangreenelaw.com
dangreenelaw@gmail.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 Daniel M. Greene, 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 Daniel M. Greene, 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.

any authority that failure to give notice of construction defect before defect is repaired per Fla. Stat. 558 is fatal to lawsuit. I am surprised how little case law on issue.

Anyone has orders supporting the dismissal/summary judgment on this argument?

Sorry for interruption. Happy Friday.

Thank you,
Hans Haahr

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 19, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Daniel Greene dangreenelaw@yahoo.com wrote:


Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
www.dangreenelaw.com
dan@dangreenelaw.com
dangreenelaw@gmail.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 Daniel M. Greene, 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 Daniel M. Greene, 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.

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

A local license is called a “registered” license, and the name, etc. is required to be sent by the local authority to DBPR, who then posts it on the agency’s Public webpage (which is the source local building departments look to in order to determine if a permit applicant is properly licensed for that jurisdiction).

There are almost NO restrictions on how a local authority licenses/regulates/restricts “registered” contractors, unlike their very limited authority over state-licensed (“certified” contractors. In order to issue a “registered” contractor’s license, state law does not require any exam; however, the local government is required to have a local licensing board (but some smaller jurisdictions do not, which might raise an interesting legal issue of whether that local contractor is properly licensed for purposes of section 489.128, EXCEPT THAT “LOCAL” LLCENSING WAS REMOVED FROM THAT SECTION YEARS AGO).

Sent from Mailhttps://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows 10

From: Daniel Greenemailto:dangreenelaw@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:05 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
www.dangreenelaw.com
dan@dangreenelaw.com
dangreenelaw@gmail.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 Daniel M. Greene, 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 Daniel M. Greene, 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.

I have not recently researched caselaw on the issue but my interpretation of Fla. Stat. s.489.128(1)(a) is that if a state license is not required for the scope of work at issue, then a contractor/subcontractor cannot be found to be unlicensed under Fla. Stat. s 489.128 (and therefore suffer loss of legal and equitable rights relating to the contract).  On flip side, the fact that a contractor may have a local issued license (but not a state issued license) will not help that contractor avoid 489.128 issues if the scope of work at issue requires a state issued license under Ch. 489.

Michael Gibbons
Shareholder
215 N. Eola Dr. | Orlando, FL 32801
D: 407.418.6378 | P: 407.843.4600
Emailmailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com | Websitehttp://lowndes-law.com | Bio<lowndes-law.com/people/Michael-Gibbons> | VCardhttps://lowndeslaw.dpmlocal.com/admin/vcard/generate.php?id=64

[cid:image001.png@01D6464D.8C10B6A0]

LOCAL ROOTS. BROAD REACH. SM

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of Daniel Greene
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:00 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

CAUTION: THIS IS AN EXTERNAL EMAIL

Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
www.dangreenelaw.comhttp://www.dangreenelaw.com
dan@dangreenelaw.commailto:dan@dangreenelaw.com
dangreenelaw@gmail.commailto:dangreenelaw@gmail.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 Daniel M. Greene, 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 Daniel M. Greene, 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.

This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast.  For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

Fla. Stat. s. 558.004(12) expressly states that the statute was not intended to create any new defenses unless expressly stated therein.  If the statute was intended to create a process that upon failure of the claimant to comply with it, the claimant would suffer the entire loss of its cause of action, then I would expect that intent to be clearly reflected in the terms of Ch. 558.  While Ch. 558 does require an Owner to provide pre-suit notice of a construction defect claim, it does not expressly state that non-compliance results in the loss of the Owner’s cause of action. In fact, by recognizing that an Owner may sue first without giving the notice and providing that IF that happens the remedy is a STAY of the lawsuit for 60 days, I would say that Ch. 558 pretty plainly does not support the defense of dismissal with prejudice of the Owner’s claim for failure  to comply with the notice requirements.  Lastly, rightly or wrongly, the notice provisions of Ch. 558 are tied to commencement of a lawsuit and not commencement of repairs.

Michael Gibbons
Shareholder
215 N. Eola Dr. | Orlando, FL 32801
D: 407.418.6378 | P: 407.843.4600
Emailmailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com | Websitehttp://lowndes-law.com | Bio<lowndes-law.com/people/Michael-Gibbons> | VCardhttps://lowndeslaw.dpmlocal.com/admin/vcard/generate.php?id=64

[cid:image001.png@01D6464F.B5450B50]

LOCAL ROOTS. BROAD REACH. SM

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of Hans Peter Haahr
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:10 PM
To: Daniel Greene dangreenelaw@yahoo.com
Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

CAUTION: THIS IS AN EXTERNAL EMAIL

any authority that failure to give notice of construction defect before defect is repaired per Fla. Stat. 558 is fatal to lawsuit. I am surprised how little case law on issue.

Anyone has orders supporting the dismissal/summary judgment on this argument?

Sorry for interruption. Happy Friday.

Thank you,
Hans Haahr
Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 19, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Daniel Greene <dangreenelaw@yahoo.commailto:dangreenelaw@yahoo.com> wrote:

Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
www.dangreenelaw.comhttp://www.dangreenelaw.com
dan@dangreenelaw.commailto:dan@dangreenelaw.com
dangreenelaw@gmail.commailto:dangreenelaw@gmail.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 Daniel M. Greene, 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 Daniel M. Greene, 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.

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussionhttp://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast.  For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

I haven’t seen any cases on this point, but it’s an interesting one. I respectfully disagree, though, with your conclusion, because I maintain that the removal of “local” from that section may have, in fact, viscerated the entire section. Any takers?

Sent from Mailhttps://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows 10

From: Gibbons, Michaelmailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:28 PM
To: Daniel Greenemailto:dangreenelaw@yahoo.com; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

I have not recently researched caselaw on the issue but my interpretation of Fla. Stat. s.489.128(1)(a) is that if a state license is not required for the scope of work at issue, then a contractor/subcontractor cannot be found to be unlicensed under Fla. Stat. s 489.128 (and therefore suffer loss of legal and equitable rights relating to the contract).  On flip side, the fact that a contractor may have a local issued license (but not a state issued license) will not help that contractor avoid 489.128 issues if the scope of work at issue requires a state issued license under Ch. 489.

Michael Gibbons
Shareholder
215 N. Eola Dr. | Orlando, FL 32801
D: 407.418.6378 | P: 407.843.4600
Emailmailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com | Websitehttp://lowndes-law.com | Bio<lowndes-law.com/people/Michael-Gibbons> | VCardhttps://lowndeslaw.dpmlocal.com/admin/vcard/generate.php?id=64

[cid:image002.png@01D64650.10899B70]
LOCAL ROOTS. BROAD REACH. SM

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of Daniel Greene
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:00 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

CAUTION: THIS IS AN EXTERNAL EMAIL

Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
www.dangreenelaw.comhttp://www.dangreenelaw.com
dan@dangreenelaw.commailto:dan@dangreenelaw.com
dangreenelaw@gmail.commailto:dangreenelaw@gmail.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 Daniel M. Greene, 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 Daniel M. Greene, 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.

Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail communication and the attachment(s) hereto, if any, are intended solely for the information and use of the addressee(s) identified above and may contain information which is legally privileged from disclosure and/or otherwise confidential. If a recipient of this e-mail communication is not an addressee (or an authorized representative of an addressee), such recipient is hereby advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, re-transmission or other dissemination or use of this e-mail communication (or any information contained herein) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an addressee and have received this e-mail communication in error, please advise the sender of that circumstance either by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800) 356-6818, immediately delete this e-mail communication from any computer and destroy all physical copies of same.

Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for "spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply or other e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.

[v4.30]

What Fred said.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 19, 2020, at 3:21 PM, Fred Dudley dudley@mylicenselaw.com wrote:


EXTERNAL TO GT

A local license is called a “registered” license, and the name, etc. is required to be sent by the local authority to DBPR, who then posts it on the agency’s Public webpage (which is the source local building departments look to in order to determine if a permit applicant is properly licensed for that jurisdiction).

There are almost NO restrictions on how a local authority licenses/regulates/restricts “registered” contractors, unlike their very limited authority over state-licensed (“certified” contractors. In order to issue a “registered” contractor’s license, state law does not require any exam; however, the local government is required to have a local licensing board (but some smaller jurisdictions do not, which might raise an interesting legal issue of whether that local contractor is properly licensed for purposes of section 489.128, EXCEPT THAT “LOCAL” LLCENSING WAS REMOVED FROM THAT SECTION YEARS AGO).

Sent from Mailhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!UUWsUaOXqdVd8bnIg60kZFBEUVzKM5m_HES1HoNWjsDDxCeAievMiUnLxw9z$ for Windows 10

From: Daniel Greenemailto:dangreenelaw@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:05 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.dangreenelaw.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!VxsZ8zL54QpcZMF3ed9z2k5fIqx_E_sFC_gx79wYfQYKCyCTF-WF9wroTygUXvPwV0ktWcjgo_rHJw$
dan@dangreenelaw.com
dangreenelaw@gmail.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 Daniel M. Greene, 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 Daniel M. Greene, 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.

CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!UUWsUaOXqdVd8bnIg60kZFBEUVzKM5m_HES1HoNWjsDDxCeAievMiYuvDjmY$

If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

A few months ago, I read a case from the 3d dealing with a local licensure failure.  The ruling, to the best of my memory, was to take local licensure issues on a case by case basis depending on the gravity of the failure, type of license, stated reasons for the licensure requirement etc.

I don't have the case handy but I know it was from the 3d.

thx

Daniel R. Vega, Esq.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Court Mediator
Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, PLLC
201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Telephone: (305) 443-2043
Facsimile:  (305) 443-2048
Cell:  (305) 962-5186
E-mail: dvega@tevtlaw.commailto:dvega@tevtlaw.com
www.tevtlaw.comhttp://www.tevtlaw.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D64651.80DA8C30]

The information contained in this email message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of Fred Dudley
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:41 PM
To: Gibbons, Michael Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com; Daniel Greene dangreenelaw@yahoo.com; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

I haven't seen any cases on this point, but it's an interesting one. I respectfully disagree, though, with your conclusion, because I maintain that the removal of "local" from that section may have, in fact, viscerated the entire section. Any takers?

Sent from Mailhttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306792977&sdata=Io%2BicbeFSpRFsVyCdq2n5jj5Bw3rNL1h%2Fw%2FOTEhwjuA%3D&reserved=0 for Windows 10

From: Gibbons, Michaelmailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:28 PM
To: Daniel Greenemailto:dangreenelaw@yahoo.com; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

I have not recently researched caselaw on the issue but my interpretation of Fla. Stat. s.489.128(1)(a) is that if a state license is not required for the scope of work at issue, then a contractor/subcontractor cannot be found to be unlicensed under Fla. Stat. s 489.128 (and therefore suffer loss of legal and equitable rights relating to the contract).  On flip side, the fact that a contractor may have a local issued license (but not a state issued license) will not help that contractor avoid 489.128 issues if the scope of work at issue requires a state issued license under Ch. 489.

Michael Gibbons
Shareholder
215 N. Eola Dr. | Orlando, FL 32801
D: 407.418.6378 | P: 407.843.4600
Emailmailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com | Websitehttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flowndes-law.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306802973&sdata=i89xmW%2FRbUGCU7EfC%2BE5H%2FyzlK2VmpF8kX7UGxxbtSE%3D&reserved=0 | Biohttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flowndes-law.com%2Fpeople%2FMichael-Gibbons&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306802973&sdata=GCqMCIko6mtc7CXgkcgs%2Bj8AS5%2Bfu5IR5L%2FAS9Qstj4%3D&reserved=0 | VCardhttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flowndeslaw.dpmlocal.com%2Fadmin%2Fvcard%2Fgenerate.php%3Fid%3D64&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306812967&sdata=1RKPrXvBwTnvb0mDo%2Bvh3V980%2Bl90FRGZYKKS1gN140%3D&reserved=0

[cid:image002.png@01D64651.80EFC1E0]
LOCAL ROOTS. BROAD REACH. SM

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Greene
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:00 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

CAUTION: THIS IS AN EXTERNAL EMAIL

Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
www.dangreenelaw.comhttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dangreenelaw.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306812967&sdata=lzNMep3MWr26Zik5oamFQFpAd7b6Ti5%2B3N8MN0LhvyY%3D&reserved=0
dan@dangreenelaw.commailto:dan@dangreenelaw.com
dangreenelaw@gmail.commailto:dangreenelaw@gmail.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 Daniel M. Greene, 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 Daniel M. Greene, 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.

Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail communication and the attachment(s) hereto, if any, are intended solely for the information and use of the addressee(s) identified above and may contain information which is legally privileged from disclosure and/or otherwise confidential. If a recipient of this e-mail communication is not an addressee (or an authorized representative of an addressee), such recipient is hereby advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, re-transmission or other dissemination or use of this e-mail communication (or any information contained herein) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an addressee and have received this e-mail communication in error, please advise the sender of that circumstance either by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800) 356-6818, immediately delete this e-mail communication from any computer and destroy all physical copies of same.

Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for "spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply or other e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.

[v4.30]

Dan is thinking about MGM Construction Services, copy attached.

b.

Brian F. Stayton
Stayton Law Group, P.A
Note new address:
3619 Lithia Pinecrest Road
Valrico Florida 33596
Telephone: (813) 662-9829
Facsimile: (813) 662-9830
Brian@StaytonLawGroup.commailto:Brian@StaytonLawGroup.com
Board Certified in Construction Law

[Description: Header.jpg]
NOTICE:  This e-mail was sent by an attorney, is highly confidential, and may be privileged as a matter of law. This message is intended only for the use of persons named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this message, including its dissemination, distribution, copying, or printing, is strictly prohibited. This e-mail and any attached documents contain information that is proprietary, confidential, and protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, as well as Federal and State copyright laws.  If you are not an intended recipient of this document or any attachments, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any other action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on them is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you receive this message in error, please reply and inform me of that mistake. In addition, permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments. Thank you.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed in this communication. To obtain penalty protection, the U.S. Treasury Regulations require attorneys, accountants and other tax advisors to perform increased due diligence to verify all relevant facts and to format the written tax advice in a lengthy number of separately enumerated sections with numerous disclosures.  If you would like written tax advice designed to provide penalty protection, please contact us and we will need to discuss the matter with you in more detail.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org on behalf of Dan Vega DVega@TEVTLaw.com
Date: Friday, June 19, 2020 at 3:59 PM
To: Fred Dudley dudley@mylicenselaw.com, Michael Gibbons Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com, Daniel Greene dangreenelaw@yahoo.com, "clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org" clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

A few months ago, I read a case from the 3d dealing with a local licensure failure.  The ruling, to the best of my memory, was to take local licensure issues on a case by case basis depending on the gravity of the failure, type of license, stated reasons for the licensure requirement etc.

I don’t have the case handy but I know it was from the 3d.

thx

Daniel R. Vega, Esq.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Court Mediator
Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, PLLC
201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Telephone: (305) 443-2043
Facsimile:  (305) 443-2048
Cell:  (305) 962-5186
E-mail: dvega@tevtlaw.commailto:dvega@tevtlaw.com
www.tevtlaw.comhttp://www.tevtlaw.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D64651.80DA8C30]

The information contained in this email message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney–client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of Fred Dudley
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:41 PM
To: Gibbons, Michael Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com; Daniel Greene dangreenelaw@yahoo.com; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

I haven’t seen any cases on this point, but it’s an interesting one. I respectfully disagree, though, with your conclusion, because I maintain that the removal of “local” from that section may have, in fact, viscerated the entire section. Any takers?

Sent from Mailhttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306792977&sdata=Io%2BicbeFSpRFsVyCdq2n5jj5Bw3rNL1h%2Fw%2FOTEhwjuA%3D&reserved=0 for Windows 10

From: Gibbons, Michaelmailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:28 PM
To: Daniel Greenemailto:dangreenelaw@yahoo.com; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

I have not recently researched caselaw on the issue but my interpretation of Fla. Stat. s.489.128(1)(a) is that if a state license is not required for the scope of work at issue, then a contractor/subcontractor cannot be found to be unlicensed under Fla. Stat. s 489.128 (and therefore suffer loss of legal and equitable rights relating to the contract).  On flip side, the fact that a contractor may have a local issued license (but not a state issued license) will not help that contractor avoid 489.128 issues if the scope of work at issue requires a state issued license under Ch. 489.

Michael Gibbons
Shareholder
215 N. Eola Dr. | Orlando, FL 32801
D: 407.418.6378 | P: 407.843.4600
Emailmailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com | Websitehttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flowndes-law.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306802973&sdata=i89xmW%2FRbUGCU7EfC%2BE5H%2FyzlK2VmpF8kX7UGxxbtSE%3D&reserved=0 | Biohttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flowndes-law.com%2Fpeople%2FMichael-Gibbons&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306802973&sdata=GCqMCIko6mtc7CXgkcgs%2Bj8AS5%2Bfu5IR5L%2FAS9Qstj4%3D&reserved=0 | VCardhttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flowndeslaw.dpmlocal.com%2Fadmin%2Fvcard%2Fgenerate.php%3Fid%3D64&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306812967&sdata=1RKPrXvBwTnvb0mDo%2Bvh3V980%2Bl90FRGZYKKS1gN140%3D&reserved=0

[cid:image002.png@01D64651.80EFC1E0]
LOCAL ROOTS. BROAD REACH. SM

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Greene
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:00 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

CAUTION: THIS IS AN EXTERNAL EMAIL

Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
www.dangreenelaw.comhttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dangreenelaw.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306812967&sdata=lzNMep3MWr26Zik5oamFQFpAd7b6Ti5%2B3N8MN0LhvyY%3D&reserved=0
dan@dangreenelaw.commailto:dan@dangreenelaw.com
dangreenelaw@gmail.commailto:dangreenelaw@gmail.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 Daniel M. Greene, 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 Daniel M. Greene, 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.

Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail communication and the attachment(s) hereto, if any, are intended solely for the information and use of the addressee(s) identified above and may contain information which is legally privileged from disclosure and/or otherwise confidential. If a recipient of this e-mail communication is not an addressee (or an authorized representative of an addressee), such recipient is hereby advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, re-transmission or other dissemination or use of this e-mail communication (or any information contained herein) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an addressee and have received this e-mail communication in error, please advise the sender of that circumstance either by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800) 356-6818, immediately delete this e-mail communication from any computer and destroy all physical copies of same.

Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for "spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply or other e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.

[v4.30]

Dear Colleagues,

I remembered the case and I think I managed to find it. MGM v. Surety Co., 57 So.3d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

I think the issue is that the statute doesn't define local non-licensure as non-licensure for the purposes of the statute.  Instead, you have to look to the source of the other licensure requirement and whether it prescribes penalties.

That being said, I would look very closely at what is and isn't allowed to be set by local government in terms of what effects they can impose on the substantive rights between two persons (preventing enforcement) - as opposed to what they can do from a government v. person standpoint (fines, etc...).  I am not saying local government can't do it, I'm just saying don't assume that it can set whatever penalty it wants.

The case itself goes into the general test from the restatement of what to do when a violation of law occurs.

Sincerely,
Jeremy T. Cranford

Jeremy T. Cranford, Attorney, LL.M. (Real Estate)
Board Certified Specialist in Real Estate Law
Ward & Ketchersid, P.A.
1241 Airport Rd., Ste. H, Destin, FL 32541
850.837.5507 | Fax: 850.650.9659
jcranford@flaattorney.commailto:jcranford@flaattorney.com
www.flaattorney.comhttp://www.flaattorney.com/
Licensed in Florida & Missouri

This email message is being sent from an Attorney with the law firm of Ward & Ketchersid, P.A. (the "Firm") who is likely to be acting on behalf of a client thereof.  First and because this email is likely to contain confidential and/or privileged information, please protect the information contained herein from being accessed or accessible by any other person.  Second, if you have any reason to believe you should not have received this email message, please inform the Firm immediately and delete/destroy all copies hereof.  Third and if you are not presently a client of the Firm, unless this email contains a specific statement that you have become a client of the Firm, (1) do not construe anything within this email message to establish an attorney-client relationship with you and (2) do not disclose any information to the Firm that you would expect the Firm to hold in confidence.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of Dan Vega
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 2:52 PM
To: Fred Dudley dudley@mylicenselaw.com; Gibbons, Michael Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com; Daniel Greene dangreenelaw@yahoo.com; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

A few months ago, I read a case from the 3d dealing with a local licensure failure.  The ruling, to the best of my memory, was to take local licensure issues on a case by case basis depending on the gravity of the failure, type of license, stated reasons for the licensure requirement etc.

I don't have the case handy but I know it was from the 3d.

thx

Daniel R. Vega, Esq.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Court Mediator
Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, PLLC
201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Telephone: (305) 443-2043
Facsimile:  (305) 443-2048
Cell:  (305) 962-5186
E-mail: dvega@tevtlaw.commailto:dvega@tevtlaw.com
www.tevtlaw.comhttp://www.tevtlaw.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D6464D.2C4761B0]

The information contained in this email message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of Fred Dudley
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:41 PM
To: Gibbons, Michael <Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.commailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com>; Daniel Greene <dangreenelaw@yahoo.commailto:dangreenelaw@yahoo.com>; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

I haven't seen any cases on this point, but it's an interesting one. I respectfully disagree, though, with your conclusion, because I maintain that the removal of "local" from that section may have, in fact, viscerated the entire section. Any takers?

Sent from Mailhttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306792977&sdata=Io%2BicbeFSpRFsVyCdq2n5jj5Bw3rNL1h%2Fw%2FOTEhwjuA%3D&reserved=0 for Windows 10

From: Gibbons, Michaelmailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:28 PM
To: Daniel Greenemailto:dangreenelaw@yahoo.com; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

I have not recently researched caselaw on the issue but my interpretation of Fla. Stat. s.489.128(1)(a) is that if a state license is not required for the scope of work at issue, then a contractor/subcontractor cannot be found to be unlicensed under Fla. Stat. s 489.128 (and therefore suffer loss of legal and equitable rights relating to the contract).  On flip side, the fact that a contractor may have a local issued license (but not a state issued license) will not help that contractor avoid 489.128 issues if the scope of work at issue requires a state issued license under Ch. 489.

Michael Gibbons
Shareholder
215 N. Eola Dr. | Orlando, FL 32801
D: 407.418.6378 | P: 407.843.4600
Emailmailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com | Websitehttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flowndes-law.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306802973&sdata=i89xmW%2FRbUGCU7EfC%2BE5H%2FyzlK2VmpF8kX7UGxxbtSE%3D&reserved=0 | Biohttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flowndes-law.com%2Fpeople%2FMichael-Gibbons&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306802973&sdata=GCqMCIko6mtc7CXgkcgs%2Bj8AS5%2Bfu5IR5L%2FAS9Qstj4%3D&reserved=0 | VCardhttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flowndeslaw.dpmlocal.com%2Fadmin%2Fvcard%2Fgenerate.php%3Fid%3D64&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306812967&sdata=1RKPrXvBwTnvb0mDo%2Bvh3V980%2Bl90FRGZYKKS1gN140%3D&reserved=0

[cid:image002.png@01D6464D.FCDB60B0]
LOCAL ROOTS. BROAD REACH. SM

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Greene
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:00 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

CAUTION: THIS IS AN EXTERNAL EMAIL

Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
www.dangreenelaw.comhttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dangreenelaw.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306812967&sdata=lzNMep3MWr26Zik5oamFQFpAd7b6Ti5%2B3N8MN0LhvyY%3D&reserved=0
dan@dangreenelaw.commailto:dan@dangreenelaw.com
dangreenelaw@gmail.commailto:dangreenelaw@gmail.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 Daniel M. Greene, 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 Daniel M. Greene, 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.

Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail communication and the attachment(s) hereto, if any, are intended solely for the information and use of the addressee(s) identified above and may contain information which is legally privileged from disclosure and/or otherwise confidential. If a recipient of this e-mail communication is not an addressee (or an authorized representative of an addressee), such recipient is hereby advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, re-transmission or other dissemination or use of this e-mail communication (or any information contained herein) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an addressee and have received this e-mail communication in error, please advise the sender of that circumstance either by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800) 356-6818, immediately delete this e-mail communication from any computer and destroy all physical copies of same.

Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for "spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply or other e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.

[v4.30]