Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold onpublic land
There's also an old case out of north Florida holding county commissioners PERSONALLY liable for failing to require a 255 bond!
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com/
Add to address bookhttp://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=frdudley | View professional biographyhttp://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosfrdudley
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Joseph G. Thresher
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:44 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold onpublic land
Why not enforce your bond remedy?
Note the first sentence of 255.05(1)(a); the recent amendments creating existing language requires private party to obtain bond(s) for work that private party contracts for as improvement to public property or a Public Work . To understand better the meaning of the amendment, do research on use of "public work"; that wording is not limited to " public property" or there would be no disjunctive "or". A very early case used "public work" as private property of a railroad that would serve the public; that case did not deal with lien or bond, but it illustrates how general "public work" means in current version of statute. A more interesting issue is defining the remedy for non-compliance against the public body or the private party that failed to obtain bonds. In some past cases the commissioners or council members were liable to person or entity that by law had right to rely upon existence of the required bonds. Who was advising the public body; the private party. Does the license or lease have an indemnity clause in favor of public entity? Have fun.
JG Thresher
813-229-7744
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold onpublic land
Can you send a copy of the Order on your motion for SJ?
Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301
Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471
fred.dudley@hklaw.commailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.comhttp://www.hklaw.com/
Add to address bookhttp://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=frdudley | View professional biographyhttp://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosfrdudley
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Bryan L. Capps
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:34 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold onpublic land
Steve Pickert and I had such a case many years ago, wherein the City of Coral Springs entered into a renewable "Concession Agreement" (i.e., a lease) for a private party to build an ice-skating rink on City property. Under the Concession Agreement, the concessionaire/lessee actually owned the improvements subject to the City's reversionary interest at the conclusion of the lease. The concessionaire/lessee didn't pay the contractor and, in fact, sold its interest during construction. The contractor, our client, recorded a lien against the property, and both the concessionaire/lessee and the purchaser said the property was not lienable. We moved for and were granted summary judgment in our favor on that issue. Attached is the motion/brief, which is a matter of public record and may be helpful. Presumably much of the law has changed/evolved over the past 14 or so years.
Bryan Capps
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org on behalf of Larry Leiby
Sent: Thu 2/2/2012 3:44 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold onpublic land
The answer is in the definitions in 713.01 (and if you are referring to 8:3 of my book, it is set out there). The statutory reason that you can't lien publicly owned property is because a governmental owner is not within the definition of owner in 713.01. The definition of real property also excludes governmentally owned property. This is intended to keep governmentally owned property out of the lien law because a government must usually go through an election to subject public owned property to liens, e.g., financing bond issues.
An owner is also defined as one having an interest in the property and who enters into a contract for the improvement of the real property. Thus there is no reason that you cannot have a lien on a private leasehold interest that sits on public property. You want to be careful when you prepare the lien to only seek it against the leasehold. Also a lien on a leasehold is typically only as valuable as the tenant is collectable.
Go get em.
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.commailto:leiby@mkpalaw.com
Board Certified in Construction Law
Fla. S. Ct. Certified Circuit Court Civil Mediator
Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Rafael Perez
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:56 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-construction law] 713.10 lien for private leasehold on public land
Does anyone have any authority for a construction lien on a leasehold where the lessee is a private party but the lessor is a municipality (i.e. on public land)? The lessee contracted for the improvements which were required by the lease agreement. The only authority I have found is Section 8.3 of the Fla. Prac. Construction Law Manual which states in the first paragraph, in part: "However, there may be private leasehold interests on governmental property that are lienable." I have found no other authority.
Rafael A. Perez
Board Certified Construction Attorney
McArdle and Perez, P.A.
806 S. Douglas Road, Suite 625
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
305-442-2214
Fax 305-442-2291
rperez@mcper.commailto:rperez@mcper.com
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.
This isn't what you were emailing about, but it is related. I know of
cases where County Boards were held personally liable for failure to
require construction bonds, but could use additional case law. Do you
remember the name of the county commission case? Also, do you know of
any case law that discusses a public entity "slicing and dicing" a
contract into separate projects in order to bypass the bond requirement?
Tracye K. Solove, Attorney at Law
Certified Civil Circuit Mediator
Kendallwood Office Park One
12002 Southwest 128th Court
Suite 201
Miami, Florida 33186
Phone: (305) 612-0800
Facsimile: (305) 612-0801
http://www.solovelawfirm.com http://www.solovelawfirm.com/
Providing Statewide Legal Services in the areas of Commercial
Collections and Recovery, Creditors' Rights, Commercial Landlord/Tenant
and Real Estate Foreclosures
This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named
addressee(s) and may contain information which is confidential,
proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If
this notification is received by anyone other than the intended
recipient(s), the recipient(s) should immediately notify the undersigned
by E-MAIL and by telephone and obtain instructions as to the disposal of
the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read, used,
copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the intended
recipient(s) except with the express written consent of the sender.
Thank you.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:04 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lienfor private leasehold
onpublic land
There's also an old case out of north Florida holding county
commissioners PERSONALLY liable for failing to require a 255 bond!
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/
Add to address book http://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=frdudley |
View professional biography http://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosfrdudley
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Joseph G. Thresher
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:44 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
Why not enforce your bond remedy?
Note the first sentence of 255.05(1)(a); the recent amendments creating
existing language requires private party to obtain bond(s) for work that
private party contracts for as improvement to public property or a
Public Work . To understand better the meaning of the amendment, do
research on use of "public work"; that wording is not limited to "
public property" or there would be no disjunctive "or". A very early
case used "public work" as private property of a railroad that would
serve the public; that case did not deal with lien or bond, but it
illustrates how general "public work" means in current version of
statute. A more interesting issue is defining the remedy for
non-compliance against the public body or the private party that failed
to obtain bonds. In some past cases the commissioners or council members
were liable to person or entity that by law had right to rely upon
existence of the required bonds. Who was advising the public body; the
private party. Does the license or lease have an indemnity clause in
favor of public entity? Have fun.
JG Thresher
813-229-7744
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
Can you send a copy of the Order on your motion for SJ?
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/
Add to address book http://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=frdudley |
View professional biography http://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosfrdudley
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [
mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Bryan
L. Capps
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:34 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
Steve Pickert and I had such a case many years ago, wherein the City of
Coral Springs entered into a renewable "Concession Agreement" (i.e., a
lease) for a private party to build an ice-skating rink on City
property. Under the Concession Agreement, the concessionaire/lessee
actually owned the improvements subject to the City's reversionary
interest at the conclusion of the lease. The concessionaire/lessee
didn't pay the contractor and, in fact, sold its interest during
construction. The contractor, our client, recorded a lien against the
property, and both the concessionaire/lessee and the purchaser said the
property was not lienable. We moved for and were granted summary
judgment in our favor on that issue. Attached is the motion/brief,
which is a matter of public record and may be helpful. Presumably much
of the law has changed/evolved over the past 14 or so years.
Bryan Capps
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org on behalf of Larry
Leiby
Sent: Thu 2/2/2012 3:44 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
The answer is in the definitions in 713.01 (and if you are referring to
8:3 of my book, it is set out there). The statutory reason that you
can't lien publicly owned property is because a governmental owner is
not within the definition of owner in 713.01. The definition of real
property also excludes governmentally owned property. This is intended
to keep governmentally owned property out of the lien law because a
government must usually go through an election to subject public owned
property to liens, e.g., financing bond issues.
An owner is also defined as one having an interest in the property and
who enters into a contract for the improvement of the real property.
Thus there is no reason that you cannot have a lien on a private
leasehold interest that sits on public property. You want to be careful
when you prepare the lien to only seek it against the leasehold. Also a
lien on a leasehold is typically only as valuable as the tenant is
collectable.
Go get em.
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
Fla. S. Ct. 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
Rafael Perez
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:56 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-construction law] 713.10 lien for private leasehold on
public land
Does anyone have any authority for a construction lien on a leasehold
where the lessee is a private party but the lessor is a municipality
(i.e. on public land)? The lessee contracted for the improvements which
were required by the lease agreement. The only authority I have found
is Section 8.3 of the Fla. Prac. Construction Law Manual which states in
the first paragraph, in part: "However, there may be private leasehold
interests on governmental property that are lienable." I have found no
other authority.
Rafael A. Perez
Board Certified Construction Attorney
McArdle and Perez, P.A.
806 S. Douglas Road, Suite 625
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
305-442-2214
Fax 305-442-2291
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.
A 255 bond would not apply to a ground lease of public vacant property
being developed by a private developer, with title to the improvements in
the developer until the end of the lease when they revert back to the public
entity, correct?
Peyton White Lumpkin, Esq., LEED AP
The Lumpkin Law Firm P.A.
2655 Le Jeune Road
Fifth Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 667-1808
Fax: (305) 444-5366
peytonwhitelumpkin@bellsouth.net
thelumpkinlawfirm.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message, including all attachments.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:04 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
There's also an old case out of north Florida holding county commissioners
PERSONALLY liable for failing to require a 255 bond!
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
mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com fred.dudley@hklaw.com |
http://www.hklaw.com/ www.hklaw.com
http://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=frdudley Add to address book |
http://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosfrdudley View professional biography
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Joseph
G. Thresher
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:44 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
Why not enforce your bond remedy?
Note the first sentence of 255.05(1)(a); the recent amendments creating
existing language requires private party to obtain bond(s) for work that
private party contracts for as improvement to public property or a Public
Work . To understand better the meaning of the amendment, do research on
use of "public work"; that wording is not limited to " public property" or
there would be no disjunctive "or". A very early case used "public work" as
private property of a railroad that would serve the public; that case did
not deal with lien or bond, but it illustrates how general "public work"
means in current version of statute. A more interesting issue is defining
the remedy for non-compliance against the public body or the private party
that failed to obtain bonds. In some past cases the commissioners or council
members were liable to person or entity that by law had right to rely upon
existence of the required bonds. Who was advising the public body; the
private party. Does the license or lease have an indemnity clause in favor
of public entity? Have fun.
JG Thresher
813-229-7744
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
Can you send a copy of the Order on your motion for SJ?
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
mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com fred.dudley@hklaw.com |
http://www.hklaw.com/ www.hklaw.com
http://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=frdudley Add to address book |
http://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosfrdudley View professional biography
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Bryan L.
Capps
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:34 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
Steve Pickert and I had such a case many years ago, wherein the City of
Coral Springs entered into a renewable "Concession Agreement" (i.e., a
lease) for a private party to build an ice-skating rink on City property.
Under the Concession Agreement, the concessionaire/lessee actually owned the
improvements subject to the City's reversionary interest at the conclusion
of the lease. The concessionaire/lessee didn't pay the contractor and, in
fact, sold its interest during construction. The contractor, our client,
recorded a lien against the property, and both the concessionaire/lessee and
the purchaser said the property was not lienable. We moved for and were
granted summary judgment in our favor on that issue. Attached is the
motion/brief, which is a matter of public record and may be helpful.
Presumably much of the law has changed/evolved over the past 14 or so years.
Bryan Capps
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org on behalf of Larry Leiby
Sent: Thu 2/2/2012 3:44 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
The answer is in the definitions in 713.01 (and if you are referring to 8:3
of my book, it is set out there). The statutory reason that you can't lien
publicly owned property is because a governmental owner is not within the
definition of owner in 713.01. The definition of real property also
excludes governmentally owned property. This is intended to keep
governmentally owned property out of the lien law because a government must
usually go through an election to subject public owned property to liens,
e.g., financing bond issues.
An owner is also defined as one having an interest in the property and who
enters into a contract for the improvement of the real property. Thus there
is no reason that you cannot have a lien on a private leasehold interest
that sits on public property. You want to be careful when you prepare the
lien to only seek it against the leasehold. Also a lien on a leasehold is
typically only as valuable as the tenant is collectable.
Go get em.
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
Fla. S. Ct. 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 Rafael
Perez
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:56 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-construction law] 713.10 lien for private leasehold on
public land
Does anyone have any authority for a construction lien on a leasehold where
the lessee is a private party but the lessor is a municipality (i.e. on
public land)? The lessee contracted for the improvements which were
required by the lease agreement. The only authority I have found is Section
8.3 of the Fla. Prac. Construction Law Manual which states in the first
paragraph, in part: "However, there may be private leasehold interests on
governmental property that are lienable." I have found no other authority.
Rafael A. Perez
Board Certified Construction Attorney
McArdle and Perez, P.A.
806 S. Douglas Road, Suite 625
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
305-442-2214
Fax 305-442-2291
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.
Not if the amendment by 2007-221 laws of Florida are interpreted consistent
with purpose of 255.05.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Peyton
White Lumpkin
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:35 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
A 255 bond would not apply to a ground lease of public vacant property
being developed by a private developer, with title to the improvements in
the developer until the end of the lease when they revert back to the public
entity, correct?
Peyton White Lumpkin, Esq., LEED AP
The Lumpkin Law Firm P.A.
2655 Le Jeune Road
Fifth Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 667-1808
Fax: (305) 444-5366
peytonwhitelumpkin@bellsouth.net
thelumpkinlawfirm.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message, including all attachments.
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:04 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
There's also an old case out of north Florida holding county commissioners
PERSONALLY liable for failing to require a 255 bond!
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
mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com fred.dudley@hklaw.com |
http://www.hklaw.com/ www.hklaw.com
http://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=frdudley Add to address book |
http://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosfrdudley View professional biography
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Joseph
G. Thresher
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:44 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
Why not enforce your bond remedy?
Note the first sentence of 255.05(1)(a); the recent amendments creating
existing language requires private party to obtain bond(s) for work that
private party contracts for as improvement to public property or a Public
Work . To understand better the meaning of the amendment, do research on
use of "public work"; that wording is not limited to " public property" or
there would be no disjunctive "or". A very early case used "public work" as
private property of a railroad that would serve the public; that case did
not deal with lien or bond, but it illustrates how general "public work"
means in current version of statute. A more interesting issue is defining
the remedy for non-compliance against the public body or the private party
that failed to obtain bonds. In some past cases the commissioners or council
members were liable to person or entity that by law had right to rely upon
existence of the required bonds. Who was advising the public body; the
private party. Does the license or lease have an indemnity clause in favor
of public entity? Have fun.
JG Thresher
813-229-7744
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
fred.dudley@hklaw.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:25 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
Can you send a copy of the Order on your motion for SJ?
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
mailto:fred.dudley@hklaw.com fred.dudley@hklaw.com |
http://www.hklaw.com/ www.hklaw.com
http://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=frdudley Add to address book |
http://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosfrdudley View professional biography
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Bryan L.
Capps
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:34 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
Steve Pickert and I had such a case many years ago, wherein the City of
Coral Springs entered into a renewable "Concession Agreement" (i.e., a
lease) for a private party to build an ice-skating rink on City property.
Under the Concession Agreement, the concessionaire/lessee actually owned the
improvements subject to the City's reversionary interest at the conclusion
of the lease. The concessionaire/lessee didn't pay the contractor and, in
fact, sold its interest during construction. The contractor, our client,
recorded a lien against the property, and both the concessionaire/lessee and
the purchaser said the property was not lienable. We moved for and were
granted summary judgment in our favor on that issue. Attached is the
motion/brief, which is a matter of public record and may be helpful.
Presumably much of the law has changed/evolved over the past 14 or so years.
Bryan Capps
From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org on behalf of Larry Leiby
Sent: Thu 2/2/2012 3:44 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land
The answer is in the definitions in 713.01 (and if you are referring to 8:3
of my book, it is set out there). The statutory reason that you can't lien
publicly owned property is because a governmental owner is not within the
definition of owner in 713.01. The definition of real property also
excludes governmentally owned property. This is intended to keep
governmentally owned property out of the lien law because a government must
usually go through an election to subject public owned property to liens,
e.g., financing bond issues.
An owner is also defined as one having an interest in the property and who
enters into a contract for the improvement of the real property. Thus there
is no reason that you cannot have a lien on a private leasehold interest
that sits on public property. You want to be careful when you prepare the
lien to only seek it against the leasehold. Also a lien on a leasehold is
typically only as valuable as the tenant is collectable.
Go get em.
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
Fla. S. Ct. 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 Rafael
Perez
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:56 PM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-construction law] 713.10 lien for private leasehold on
public land
Does anyone have any authority for a construction lien on a leasehold where
the lessee is a private party but the lessor is a municipality (i.e. on
public land)? The lessee contracted for the improvements which were
required by the lease agreement. The only authority I have found is Section
8.3 of the Fla. Prac. Construction Law Manual which states in the first
paragraph, in part: "However, there may be private leasehold interests on
governmental property that are lienable." I have found no other authority.
Rafael A. Perez
Board Certified Construction Attorney
McArdle and Perez, P.A.
806 S. Douglas Road, Suite 625
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
305-442-2214
Fax 305-442-2291
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.