New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
I think it depends what you agree to. If you reduce a disputed fact to
an undisputed fact, i.e., "the parties agree that not withstanding the
timing of actual final payment upon resolution of disputed items, the
contract shall be deemed to have been completed on January 15, 2015."
You are simply agreeing to a fact that might have otherwise been
disputed.
On the contrary, if you said, "The parties agree on this 1st day of
June 2015 that all actions arising in anyway out of this agreement shall
be brought on or before June 1, 2020 or be forever barred," you probably
would in fact run afoul of 95.03 if actions would have otherwise been
permitted beyond that date.
Robert E. Doan
County Attorney's Office
123 West Indiana Avenue, Ste. 301
DeLand, Florida 32720-4613
Telephone: (386) 736-5950
Fax: (386) 736-5990
Email: rdoan@volusia.org
"Bryan L. Capps" BCapps@moopd.com 5/11/2015 2:05 PM >>>
Might not such a provision be void under Fla. Stat.
§95.03http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.03.html?
Bryan L. Capps, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law by the Florida Bar
Moye, O'Brien, Pickert & Dillon, LLP
800 S. Orlando Ave.
Maitland, FL 32751
Ph: (407) 622-5250
Cell: (407) 808-0098
bcapps@moopd.commailto:bcapps@moopd.com
www.moopd.comhttp://www.moopd.com
-----Original Message-----
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Robert Doan
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 1:37 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th
DCA
And perhaps a new practice point to consider:
In drafting settlement agreements where final payment was delayed for
any reason, the parties should attempt to agree to and memorialize an
agreed project completion date for the purposes of any future litigation
related to latent defects. One less thing to litigate later on.
Robert E. Doan
County Attorney's Office
123 West Indiana Avenue, Ste. 301
DeLand, Florida 32720-4613
Telephone: (386) 736-5950
Fax: (386) 736-5990
Fred Dudley
<dudley@mylicenselaw.commailto:dudley@mylicenselaw.com>
5/11/2015 12:55 PM >>>
I understand, but would be opposed to opening up the SOR for this
purpose.
Fred R. Dudley, Partner
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Dudley, Sellers & Healy, P. L.
SunTrust Financial Center, Suite 301
3522 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Cell: (850) 294-3471
Direct: (850)692-6368
dudley@mylicenselaw.commailto:dudley@mylicenselaw.com
From:
clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Robert Worman
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 12:18 PM
To: Timothy R. Moorhead; Jeff Price; 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC
Discussion'
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th
DCA
So an owner can intentionally delay payment, or, where in good faith
disputes final payment by litigation which it loses, and then is
rewarded by getting the windfall of an extended SOL under the Statute of
Repose?
Does not seem fair. Maybe we should be considering a legislative fix?
Regards,
Robert B. Worman
Worman & Sheffler, P.A.
2707 West Fairbanks Avenue
Suite 200
Winter Park, FL 32789
407 843-5353
rworman@wormanlaw.com<mailto:rworman@wormanlaw.commailto:rworman@wormanlaw.com%3cmailto:rworman@wormanlaw.com>
NOTICE:
THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENT TO THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE CONTAINS
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT
THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU MUST NOT REVIEW, RETRANSMIT, CONVERT TO HARD
COPY, COPY, USE OR DISSEMINATE THIS E-MAIL OR ANY ATTACHMENT TO IT. IF
YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY
RETURN E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE AT 407-843-5353 AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE CONTAINS A FORWARDED MESSAGE OR
IS A REPLY TO A PRIOR MESSAGE, SOME OR ALL OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS
MESSAGE OR ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY WORMAN &
SHEFFLER, P.A.
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED
BY THE IRS UNDER CIRCULAR 230, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY U.S. FEDERAL TAX
ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS),
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY STATED, WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED, AND
CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES UNDER THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO
ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS LAW FIRM MAY BE ACTING AS A DEBT COLLECTOR AND
IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE USED
FOR THAT PURPOSE.
From:
clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Timothy R. Moorhead
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 11:30 AM
To: Jeff Price; 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC Discussion'
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th
DCA
Peers:
Frankly, I think the 5th got it right. I would be cautious that the
question put to the Court was very finite and avoid the urge to over
apply the ruling. The question was, when is a contract complete for the
purposes of the Statute of Repose? The simple answer, in my simple mind
at least, is when all performance due thereunder, including payment has
occurred. Here, payment was due after performance and is a clear
indication of the Owner's agreement that performance by the Contractor
was complete.
The legislature should have said "construction" if that is what they
meant. They said "contract." We have to assume that they knew and
appreciated the difference.
Timothy R. Moorhead, Esq.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CF533E.817267B0]
Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.
505 Maitland Avenue
Suite 1000
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
(407) 425-0234
(407) 425-0260 (fax)
Board Certified in Construction Law
tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com<mailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.commailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com%3cmailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com>
www.wfmblaw.com<http://www.wfmblaw.comhttp://www.wfmblaw.com%3chttp:/www.wfmblaw.com>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the
attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information
belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client
privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is
illegal. If you have received this transmission in error, please
promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies
of the transmission.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with recently enacted
U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless
otherwise expressly stated, any and all tax advice contained in this
communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or
this firm for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or
avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law.
Furthermore, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax
advice contained in this communication has neither been written nor
intended by the sender or this firm for the purpose of promoting,
marketing, or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment
plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer should seek
advice on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent
tax advisor.
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.
From:
clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
Price
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:43 AM
To: 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC Discussion'
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
Cypress v. Bergeron, 5D13-4102 (May 8, 2015).
The 5th DCA has created an unnecessary rule for when a construction
contract is complete. They have created what can only be called a
bright-line rule. The contract between an Owner and a Contractor is
complete upon payment to the Contractor.
A bright line rule should work all the time and be equitable to both
parties if, as the court said, the statute language is unambiguous.
"[A] bright-line test will ordinarily require only a cursory review of
the record by a trial court." [A] bright-line rule [is] appealing in
that it establishes a rule that is easy to apply and relieves the trial
court and litigants of the burden of determining and guessing as to
whether an activity is merely passive or active." Chemrock Corp. v.
Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786, 791-92 (Fla. 2011).
By holding that the date of final payment to the contractor signifies
the contract completion the Court add ambiguity to the mix. Further,
this ruling ignores three things in my mind:
-
Reality - the facts on the ground. For example: In this case,
had the Owner and/or the A/E accepted the buildings and were they being
used and occupied by the Owner? At the time of submitting the final pay
application did anyone disagree that the work was done?
a. Was the 3 day lag for payment simply a "passive" ministerial
act whose timing was dependent upon the postal service?
b. The pay app was delivered on Wednesday and "final payment" was
made on Friday. So, was the check written on Friday? Was it "deposited"
or was it "settled" on Friday at the bank? Was it "mailed" on Friday?
Was it "signed" on Friday? Or was it handed to the contractor on
Friday?
If the Court is creating a bright-line rule about when a construction
contract is complete ("Completion of the contract means completion of
performance by both sides of the contract") then we need more direction
than "payment was made."
The thing is, the trial court can hold an evidentiary hearing. The DCA
should have punted and said that the date of completion of the contract
is fact dependent.
-
The Fudge Factor - Owners now get to determine the contract
completion date (and this is just as unfair as allowing the GC to
determine it by sending the final pay app early). Would the Court have
ruled differently if the Owner took 90 days to pay? If they would have
ruled differently, then this is a bad bright-line rule.
-
Slow Pay Incentive - Any reason for an Owner to pay quickly
given this ruling? Will this ruling delay final payments in some
regards?
Does the Court's ruling work if, say, the Owner and GC are at odds at
the end of the contract?
Let's try an everyday construction law example:
GC says they are done and sends final pay app and everything else
required by statute and the contract.
Owner says GC is not done and withholds payment claiming some sticking
point (how many times does that happen?).
For the next six months both sides argue about something. (I had one
where it was door numbers in the wrong typeface).
After six months they all realize the lawyers are costing too much
money and they just drop the matter.
No written settlement, no promises, no extra performance by either
side; they just decide to stop fighting.
The Owner sends the final payment. Is the contract complete now? Or was
it complete six months earlier?
Does the 5th DCA's bright-line rule accomplish justice if, later on in
a repose fight, the Owner gets to claim an extra 6 months?
Jeffrey L. Price, Esq.
Florida Bar Board Certified - Construction Law Florida Civil-law
Notary
Niesen|Price|Worthy|Campo, PA
5216 SW 91st Drive Gainesville, FL 32608
Ph (352) 373-9031 Fax (352) 373-9099
http://npw-law.com<http://npw-law.com/http://npw-law.com%3chttp:/npw-law.com/>
[npw-logo-circle-orange-medium][ConstructionLaw small logo]
[http://www.boyd-jenerette.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/nacln12.gif]
This communication is intended for the sole use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If the reader of this communication is not the
intended recipient, employee or agent responsible for delivering the
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately notify me by telephone, delete this communication,
and destroy any copies of it. Thank you.
From:
clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Roberts, Hardy L.
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 2:14 PM
To: CLC Discussion
(clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>)
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] CLC -- New Statute of Repose Decision
The Fifth District held today (in the attached opinion that is not yet
final) that the statute of repose commenced to run when a construction
contract was completed rather than when construction was completed. The
parties argued over whether the statute of repose began to run from the
date the contractor made its final application for payment or whether
the period ran from the date the final payment was made. The Fifth DCA
held that the contract at issue was complete when the final payment was
made and that the statute began to run on that later date.
[Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.]
Hardy L. Roberts
Attorney at Law
Board Certified in Construction Law by the Florida Bar
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000
Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813.229.4105 | Fax: 813.229.4133
HRoberts@cfjblaw.com<mailto:HRoberts@cfjblaw.commailto:HRoberts@cfjblaw.com%3cmailto:HRoberts@cfjblaw.com>
|
www.CFJBLaw.com<http://www.cfjblaw.com/http://www.CFJBLaw.com%3chttp:/www.cfjblaw.com/>
biohttp://www.cfjblaw.com/hroberts/ |
vcardhttp://www.cfjblaw.com/FCWSite/Features/_Attorneys/vCard.aspx?attorney=176
|
LinkedInhttp://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=249761797&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile
Confidential: This e-mail contains a communication protected by the
attorney-client privilege or constitutes work product. If you do not
expect such a communication please delete this message without reading
it or any attachment and then notify the sender of this inadvertent
delivery.
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
I could see where it could be a problem. Although if the parties agree at the outset in the prime or sub-contract a certain act constitutes the contract completion date, I am not sure there is anything wrong with that. It certainly does not seek to circumvent the law under 95.11(3)(c), Fla. Stat. , but rather clarify something that could be disputed in the future
[Description: newlogo]
Sean A. Mickley, Esq.
Gould Cooksey Fennell
979 Beachland Boulevard
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Telephone 772-231-1100 Fax 772-231-2020
smickley@gouldcooksey.commailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
Circular 230 Disclosure: In compliance with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Bryan L. Capps
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 2:06 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
Might not such a provision be void under Fla. Stat. §95.03http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.03.html?
Bryan L. Capps, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law by the Florida Bar
Moye, O'Brien, Pickert & Dillon, LLP
800 S. Orlando Ave.
Maitland, FL 32751
Ph: (407) 622-5250
Cell: (407) 808-0098
bcapps@moopd.commailto:bcapps@moopd.com
www.moopd.comhttp://www.moopd.com
-----Original Message-----
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Robert Doan
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 1:37 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
And perhaps a new practice point to consider:
In drafting settlement agreements where final payment was delayed for any reason, the parties should attempt to agree to and memorialize an agreed project completion date for the purposes of any future litigation related to latent defects. One less thing to litigate later on.
Robert E. Doan
County Attorney's Office
123 West Indiana Avenue, Ste. 301
DeLand, Florida 32720-4613
Telephone: (386) 736-5950
Fax: (386) 736-5990
Fred Dudley <dudley@mylicenselaw.commailto:dudley@mylicenselaw.com> 5/11/2015 12:55 PM >>>
I understand, but would be opposed to opening up the SOR for this purpose.
Fred R. Dudley, Partner
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Dudley, Sellers & Healy, P. L.
SunTrust Financial Center, Suite 301
3522 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Cell: (850) 294-3471
Direct: (850)692-6368
dudley@mylicenselaw.commailto:dudley@mylicenselaw.com
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Robert Worman
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 12:18 PM
To: Timothy R. Moorhead; Jeff Price; 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC Discussion'
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
So an owner can intentionally delay payment, or, where in good faith disputes final payment by litigation which it loses, and then is rewarded by getting the windfall of an extended SOL under the Statute of Repose?
Does not seem fair. Maybe we should be considering a legislative fix?
Regards,
Robert B. Worman
Worman & Sheffler, P.A.
2707 West Fairbanks Avenue
Suite 200
Winter Park, FL 32789
407 843-5353
rworman@wormanlaw.com<mailto:rworman@wormanlaw.commailto:rworman@wormanlaw.com%3cmailto:rworman@wormanlaw.com>
NOTICE:
THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENT TO THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU MUST NOT REVIEW, RETRANSMIT, CONVERT TO HARD COPY, COPY, USE OR DISSEMINATE THIS E-MAIL OR ANY ATTACHMENT TO IT. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY RETURN E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE AT 407-843-5353 AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE CONTAINS A FORWARDED MESSAGE OR IS A REPLY TO A PRIOR MESSAGE, SOME OR ALL OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE OR ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY WORMAN & SHEFFLER, P.A.
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS UNDER CIRCULAR 230, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY U.S. FEDERAL TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS), UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY STATED, WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS LAW FIRM MAY BE ACTING AS A DEBT COLLECTOR AND IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Timothy R. Moorhead
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 11:30 AM
To: Jeff Price; 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC Discussion'
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
Peers:
Frankly, I think the 5th got it right. I would be cautious that the question put to the Court was very finite and avoid the urge to over apply the ruling. The question was, when is a contract complete for the purposes of the Statute of Repose? The simple answer, in my simple mind at least, is when all performance due thereunder, including payment has occurred. Here, payment was due after performance and is a clear indication of the Owner's agreement that performance by the Contractor was complete.
The legislature should have said "construction" if that is what they meant. They said "contract." We have to assume that they knew and appreciated the difference.
Timothy R. Moorhead, Esq.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CF533E.817267B0]
Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.
505 Maitland Avenue
Suite 1000
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
(407) 425-0234
(407) 425-0260 (fax)
Board Certified in Construction Law
tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com<mailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.commailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com%3cmailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com>
www.wfmblaw.com<http://www.wfmblaw.comhttp://www.wfmblaw.com%3chttp:/www.wfmblaw.com>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless otherwise expressly stated, any and all tax advice contained in this communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law. Furthermore, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax advice contained in this communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm for the purpose of promoting, marketing, or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer should seek advice on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
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.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Price
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:43 AM
To: 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC Discussion'
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
Cypress v. Bergeron, 5D13-4102 (May 8, 2015).
The 5th DCA has created an unnecessary rule for when a construction contract is complete. They have created what can only be called a bright-line rule. The contract between an Owner and a Contractor is complete upon payment to the Contractor.
A bright line rule should work all the time and be equitable to both parties if, as the court said, the statute language is unambiguous.
"[A] bright-line test will ordinarily require only a cursory review of the record by a trial court." [A] bright-line rule [is] appealing in that it establishes a rule that is easy to apply and relieves the trial court and litigants of the burden of determining and guessing as to whether an activity is merely passive or active." Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786, 791-92 (Fla. 2011).
By holding that the date of final payment to the contractor signifies the contract completion the Court add ambiguity to the mix. Further, this ruling ignores three things in my mind:
-
Reality - the facts on the ground. For example: In this case, had the Owner and/or the A/E accepted the buildings and were they being used and occupied by the Owner? At the time of submitting the final pay application did anyone disagree that the work was done?
a. Was the 3 day lag for payment simply a "passive" ministerial act whose timing was dependent upon the postal service?
b. The pay app was delivered on Wednesday and "final payment" was made on Friday. So, was the check written on Friday? Was it "deposited" or was it "settled" on Friday at the bank? Was it "mailed" on Friday? Was it "signed" on Friday? Or was it handed to the contractor on Friday?
If the Court is creating a bright-line rule about when a construction contract is complete ("Completion of the contract means completion of performance by both sides of the contract") then we need more direction than "payment was made."
The thing is, the trial court can hold an evidentiary hearing. The DCA should have punted and said that the date of completion of the contract is fact dependent.
-
The Fudge Factor - Owners now get to determine the contract completion date (and this is just as unfair as allowing the GC to determine it by sending the final pay app early). Would the Court have ruled differently if the Owner took 90 days to pay? If they would have ruled differently, then this is a bad bright-line rule. -
Slow Pay Incentive - Any reason for an Owner to pay quickly given this ruling? Will this ruling delay final payments in some regards?
Does the Court's ruling work if, say, the Owner and GC are at odds at the end of the contract?
Let's try an everyday construction law example:
GC says they are done and sends final pay app and everything else required by statute and the contract.
Owner says GC is not done and withholds payment claiming some sticking point (how many times does that happen?).
For the next six months both sides argue about something. (I had one where it was door numbers in the wrong typeface).
After six months they all realize the lawyers are costing too much money and they just drop the matter.
No written settlement, no promises, no extra performance by either side; they just decide to stop fighting.
The Owner sends the final payment. Is the contract complete now? Or was it complete six months earlier?
Does the 5th DCA's bright-line rule accomplish justice if, later on in a repose fight, the Owner gets to claim an extra 6 months?
Jeffrey L. Price, Esq.
Florida Bar Board Certified - Construction Law Florida Civil-law Notary
Niesen|Price|Worthy|Campo, PA
5216 SW 91st Drive Gainesville, FL 32608
Ph (352) 373-9031 Fax (352) 373-9099
http://npw-law.com<http://npw-law.com/http://npw-law.com%3chttp:/npw-law.com/>
[npw-logo-circle-orange-medium][ConstructionLaw small logo] [http://www.boyd-jenerette.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/nacln12.gif] This communication is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify me by telephone, delete this communication, and destroy any copies of it. Thank you.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Roberts, Hardy L.
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 2:14 PM
To: CLC Discussion (clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>)
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] CLC -- New Statute of Repose Decision
The Fifth District held today (in the attached opinion that is not yet final) that the statute of repose commenced to run when a construction contract was completed rather than when construction was completed. The parties argued over whether the statute of repose began to run from the date the contractor made its final application for payment or whether the period ran from the date the final payment was made. The Fifth DCA held that the contract at issue was complete when the final payment was made and that the statute began to run on that later date.
[Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.]
Hardy L. Roberts
Attorney at Law
Board Certified in Construction Law by the Florida Bar
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000
Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813.229.4105 | Fax: 813.229.4133
HRoberts@cfjblaw.com<mailto:HRoberts@cfjblaw.commailto:HRoberts@cfjblaw.com%3cmailto:HRoberts@cfjblaw.com> | www.CFJBLaw.com<http://www.cfjblaw.com/http://www.CFJBLaw.com%3chttp:/www.cfjblaw.com/>
biohttp://www.cfjblaw.com/hroberts/ | vcardhttp://www.cfjblaw.com/FCWSite/Features/_Attorneys/vCard.aspx?attorney=176 | LinkedInhttp://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=249761797&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile
Confidential: This e-mail contains a communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or constitutes work product. If you do not expect such a communication please delete this message without reading it or any attachment and then notify the sender of this inadvertent delivery.
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
There is a statute that makes an agreement to shorten the time for the statute of limitations void and unenforceable. I suspect the same would be true of shortening the repose period. Bumping up the trigger date for the repose period might effectively shorten the period.
Food for thought.
[cid:imaged26635.PNG@9adc2ef8.46997b67]
www.csklegal.comhttp://www.csklegal.com George R. Truitt, Esq.
George.Truitt@csklegal.commailto:George.Truitt@csklegal.com
Tel: 305-350-5331
Fax: 305-373-2294
Cole, Scott & Kissane Building
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami, Florida 33156https://maps.google.com/maps?q=9150%20S%20Dadeland%20Blvd%2C%20Suite%201400%20miami%2Cfl%2033156&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=bv.57155469,d.cWc,pv.xjs.s.en_US.v-r5CthikH8.O&biw=792&bih=484&wrapid=tlif138626915620421&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=wl
[cid:image13794e.JPG@df4b770b.4bbe183f]
From: Sean A. Mickley [mailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 2:23 PM
To: Bryan L. Capps; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: SPAM Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
I could see where it could be a problem. Although if the parties agree at the outset in the prime or sub-contract a certain act constitutes the contract completion date, I am not sure there is anything wrong with that. It certainly does not seek to circumvent the law under 95.11(3)(c), Fla. Stat. , but rather clarify something that could be disputed in the future
[Description: newlogo]
Sean A. Mickley, Esq.
Gould Cooksey Fennell
979 Beachland Boulevard
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Telephone 772-231-1100 Fax 772-231-2020
smickley@gouldcooksey.commailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
Circular 230 Disclosure: In compliance with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to IRS Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Bryan L. Capps
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 2:06 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
Might not such a provision be void under Fla. Stat. §95.03http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.03.html?
Bryan L. Capps, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law by the Florida Bar
Moye, O’Brien, Pickert & Dillon, LLP
800 S. Orlando Ave.
Maitland, FL 32751
Ph: (407) 622-5250
Cell: (407) 808-0098
bcapps@moopd.commailto:bcapps@moopd.com
www.moopd.comhttp://www.moopd.com
-----Original Message-----
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Robert Doan
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 1:37 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
And perhaps a new practice point to consider:
In drafting settlement agreements where final payment was delayed for any reason, the parties should attempt to agree to and memorialize an agreed project completion date for the purposes of any future litigation related to latent defects. One less thing to litigate later on.
Robert E. Doan
County Attorney's Office
123 West Indiana Avenue, Ste. 301
DeLand, Florida 32720-4613
Telephone: (386) 736-5950
Fax: (386) 736-5990
Fred Dudley <dudley@mylicenselaw.commailto:dudley@mylicenselaw.com> 5/11/2015 12:55 PM >>>
I understand, but would be opposed to opening up the SOR for this purpose.
Fred R. Dudley, Partner
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Dudley, Sellers & Healy, P. L.
SunTrust Financial Center, Suite 301
3522 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Cell: (850) 294-3471
Direct: (850)692-6368
dudley@mylicenselaw.commailto:dudley@mylicenselaw.com
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Robert Worman
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 12:18 PM
To: Timothy R. Moorhead; Jeff Price; 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC Discussion'
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
So an owner can intentionally delay payment, or, where in good faith disputes final payment by litigation which it loses, and then is rewarded by getting the windfall of an extended SOL under the Statute of Repose?
Does not seem fair. Maybe we should be considering a legislative fix?
Regards,
Robert B. Worman
Worman & Sheffler, P.A.
2707 West Fairbanks Avenue
Suite 200
Winter Park, FL 32789
407 843-5353
rworman@wormanlaw.com<mailto:rworman@wormanlaw.commailto:rworman@wormanlaw.com%3cmailto:rworman@wormanlaw.com>
NOTICE:
THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENT TO THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU MUST NOT REVIEW, RETRANSMIT, CONVERT TO HARD COPY, COPY, USE OR DISSEMINATE THIS E-MAIL OR ANY ATTACHMENT TO IT. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY RETURN E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE AT 407-843-5353 AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE CONTAINS A FORWARDED MESSAGE OR IS A REPLY TO A PRIOR MESSAGE, SOME OR ALL OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE OR ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY WORMAN & SHEFFLER, P.A.
TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS UNDER CIRCULAR 230, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY U.S. FEDERAL TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS), UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY STATED, WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THIS LAW FIRM MAY BE ACTING AS A DEBT COLLECTOR AND IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Timothy R. Moorhead
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 11:30 AM
To: Jeff Price; 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC Discussion'
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
Peers:
Frankly, I think the 5th got it right. I would be cautious that the question put to the Court was very finite and avoid the urge to over apply the ruling. The question was, when is a contract complete for the purposes of the Statute of Repose? The simple answer, in my simple mind at least, is when all performance due thereunder, including payment has occurred. Here, payment was due after performance and is a clear indication of the Owner's agreement that performance by the Contractor was complete.
The legislature should have said "construction" if that is what they meant. They said "contract." We have to assume that they knew and appreciated the difference.
Timothy R. Moorhead, Esq.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CF533E.817267B0]
Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.
505 Maitland Avenue
Suite 1000
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
(407) 425-0234
(407) 425-0260 (fax)
Board Certified in Construction Law
tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com<mailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.commailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com%3cmailto:tmoorhead@wfmblaw.com>
www.wfmblaw.com<http://www.wfmblaw.comhttp://www.wfmblaw.com%3chttp:/www.wfmblaw.com>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal. If you have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the transmission.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with recently enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we hereby advise you that, unless otherwise expressly stated, any and all tax advice contained in this communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm for the use of any taxpayer for the purpose of evading or avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed pursuant to U.S. law. Furthermore, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the use of any tax advice contained in this communication has neither been written nor intended by the sender or this firm for the purpose of promoting, marketing, or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer, and such taxpayer should seek advice on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
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.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Price
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:43 AM
To: 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC Discussion'
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA
Cypress v. Bergeron, 5D13-4102 (May 8, 2015).
The 5th DCA has created an unnecessary rule for when a construction contract is complete. They have created what can only be called a bright-line rule. The contract between an Owner and a Contractor is complete upon payment to the Contractor.
A bright line rule should work all the time and be equitable to both parties if, as the court said, the statute language is unambiguous.
"[A] bright-line test will ordinarily require only a cursory review of the record by a trial court." [A] bright-line rule [is] appealing in that it establishes a rule that is easy to apply and relieves the trial court and litigants of the burden of determining and guessing as to whether an activity is merely passive or active." Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786, 791-92 (Fla. 2011).
By holding that the date of final payment to the contractor signifies the contract completion the Court add ambiguity to the mix. Further, this ruling ignores three things in my mind:
-
Reality - the facts on the ground. For example: In this case, had the Owner and/or the A/E accepted the buildings and were they being used and occupied by the Owner? At the time of submitting the final pay application did anyone disagree that the work was done?
a. Was the 3 day lag for payment simply a "passive" ministerial act whose timing was dependent upon the postal service?
b. The pay app was delivered on Wednesday and "final payment" was made on Friday. So, was the check written on Friday? Was it "deposited" or was it "settled" on Friday at the bank? Was it "mailed" on Friday? Was it "signed" on Friday? Or was it handed to the contractor on Friday?
If the Court is creating a bright-line rule about when a construction contract is complete ("Completion of the contract means completion of performance by both sides of the contract") then we need more direction than "payment was made."
The thing is, the trial court can hold an evidentiary hearing. The DCA should have punted and said that the date of completion of the contract is fact dependent.
-
The Fudge Factor - Owners now get to determine the contract completion date (and this is just as unfair as allowing the GC to determine it by sending the final pay app early). Would the Court have ruled differently if the Owner took 90 days to pay? If they would have ruled differently, then this is a bad bright-line rule. -
Slow Pay Incentive - Any reason for an Owner to pay quickly given this ruling? Will this ruling delay final payments in some regards?
Does the Court's ruling work if, say, the Owner and GC are at odds at the end of the contract?
Let's try an everyday construction law example:
GC says they are done and sends final pay app and everything else required by statute and the contract.
Owner says GC is not done and withholds payment claiming some sticking point (how many times does that happen?).
For the next six months both sides argue about something. (I had one where it was door numbers in the wrong typeface).
After six months they all realize the lawyers are costing too much money and they just drop the matter.
No written settlement, no promises, no extra performance by either side; they just decide to stop fighting.
The Owner sends the final payment. Is the contract complete now? Or was it complete six months earlier?
Does the 5th DCA's bright-line rule accomplish justice if, later on in a repose fight, the Owner gets to claim an extra 6 months?
Jeffrey L. Price, Esq.
Florida Bar Board Certified - Construction Law Florida Civil-law Notary
Niesen|Price|Worthy|Campo, PA
5216 SW 91st Drive Gainesville, FL 32608
Ph (352) 373-9031 Fax (352) 373-9099
http://npw-law.com<http://npw-law.com/http://npw-law.com%3chttp:/npw-law.com/>
[npw-logo-circle-orange-medium][ConstructionLaw small logo] [http://www.boyd-jenerette.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/nacln12.gif] This communication is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify me by telephone, delete this communication, and destroy any copies of it. Thank you.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Roberts, Hardy L.
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 2:14 PM
To: CLC Discussion (clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org%3cmailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>)
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] CLC -- New Statute of Repose Decision
The Fifth District held today (in the attached opinion that is not yet final) that the statute of repose commenced to run when a construction contract was completed rather than when construction was completed. The parties argued over whether the statute of repose began to run from the date the contractor made its final application for payment or whether the period ran from the date the final payment was made. The Fifth DCA held that the contract at issue was complete when the final payment was made and that the statute began to run on that later date.
[Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.]
Hardy L. Roberts
Attorney at Law
Board Certified in Construction Law by the Florida Bar
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000
Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813.229.4105 | Fax: 813.229.4133
HRoberts@cfjblaw.com<mailto:HRoberts@cfjblaw.commailto:HRoberts@cfjblaw.com%3cmailto:HRoberts@cfjblaw.com> | www.CFJBLaw.com<http://www.cfjblaw.com/http://www.CFJBLaw.com%3chttp:/www.cfjblaw.com/>
biohttp://www.cfjblaw.com/hroberts/ | vcardhttp://www.cfjblaw.com/FCWSite/Features/_Attorneys/vCard.aspx?attorney=176 | LinkedInhttp://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=249761797&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile
Confidential: This e-mail contains a communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or constitutes work product. If you do not expect such a communication please delete this message without reading it or any attachment and then notify the sender of this inadvertent delivery.
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.orgmailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
Confidentiality Notice: This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. It is legally privileged (including attachments) and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us so that we may take the appropriate action and avoid troubling you further. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
