Empathy List Archives

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Mon, Feb 14, 2022 3:17 PM

Good morning.
Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice.
Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one.
Curious what is being seen out there.

Paul
Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA
Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

Good morning. Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice. Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one. Curious what is being seen out there. Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Mon, Feb 14, 2022 4:23 PM

Good morning Paul,
It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it.

“The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann.

Thanks,
Jack

[cid:image001.gif@01D82195.5256E5E0]
Jack Taylor | Attorney
Direct Line: (321) 204-4012

Angius & Terry LLPhttp://angius-terry.com/
Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor
(954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200
www.constructiondefectlaw.com<../../../../../rbennett/Desktop/_Email%20Sig/www.constructiondefectlaw.com>

Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.comhttp://constructiondefectlaw.com/! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/ [youtube] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Good morning.

Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice.

Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one.

Curious what is being seen out there.

Paul

Paul S. Martin, Esq.
Law Offices of
Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A.
2134 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, FL 33020
USA

Phone 954.923.4604
Telefax 954.923.6545

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more visit the Mimecast website.

Good morning Paul, It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it. “The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann. Thanks, Jack [cid:image001.gif@01D82195.5256E5E0] Jack Taylor | Attorney Direct Line: (321) 204-4012 Angius & Terry LLP<http://angius-terry.com/> Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor (954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200 www.constructiondefectlaw.com<../../../../../rbennett/Desktop/_Email%20Sig/www.constructiondefectlaw.com> Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.com<http://constructiondefectlaw.com/>! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/> [youtube] <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz> [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning. Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice. Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one. Curious what is being seen out there. Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more visit the Mimecast website.

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Mon, Feb 14, 2022 4:26 PM

I’m not aware of any cases in a lien scenario, but there are at least two cases invalidating liens because the NTO lacked the statutory warning language. The statutes are similarly worded, so that would be my argument.

Lee A. Weintraub
Shareholder
Board Certified in Construction Law
Chair, Public Private Partnerships Practice Group
Vice Chair, Construction Law and Litigation Practice Group
Becker & Poliakoff
1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
Ft. Lauderdale,
FL
33301
954.985.4147
954.985.4176
lweintraub@beckerlawyers.com
www.beckerlawyers.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow me on Twitter
Follow Becker on...
Confidentiality Note: This message, together with any attachments, may contain privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and permanently delete the original message, along with any attachments. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:24 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

EXTERNAL EMAIL - This message originated from an External Source.

Good morning Paul,
It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it.

“The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann.

Thanks,
Jack

[cid:image001.gif@01D82195.BB0E2620]
Jack Taylor | Attorney
Direct Line: (321) 204-4012

Angius & Terry LLPhttp://angius-terry.com/
Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor
(954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200
www.constructiondefectlaw.com<../../../../../rbennett/Desktop/_Email%20Sig/www.constructiondefectlaw.com>

Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.comhttp://constructiondefectlaw.com/! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/ [youtube] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Good morning.

Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice.

Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one.

Curious what is being seen out there.

Paul

Paul S. Martin, Esq.
Law Offices of
Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A.
2134 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, FL 33020
USA

Phone 954.923.4604
Telefax 954.923.6545

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Herehttp://www.mimecast.com/products.

I’m not aware of any cases in a lien scenario, but there are at least two cases invalidating liens because the NTO lacked the statutory warning language. The statutes are similarly worded, so that would be my argument. Lee A. Weintraub Shareholder Board Certified in Construction Law Chair, Public Private Partnerships Practice Group Vice Chair, Construction Law and Litigation Practice Group Becker & Poliakoff 1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 954.985.4147 954.985.4176 lweintraub@beckerlawyers.com www.beckerlawyers.com Connect with me on LinkedIn Follow me on Twitter Follow Becker on... Confidentiality Note: This message, together with any attachments, may contain privileged and confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and permanently delete the original message, along with any attachments. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:24 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien EXTERNAL EMAIL - This message originated from an External Source. Good morning Paul, It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it. “The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann. Thanks, Jack [cid:image001.gif@01D82195.BB0E2620] Jack Taylor | Attorney Direct Line: (321) 204-4012 Angius & Terry LLP<http://angius-terry.com/> Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor (954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200 www.constructiondefectlaw.com<../../../../../rbennett/Desktop/_Email%20Sig/www.constructiondefectlaw.com> Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.com<http://constructiondefectlaw.com/>! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/> [youtube] <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz> [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning. Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice. Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one. Curious what is being seen out there. Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here<http://www.mimecast.com/products>.

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Mon, Feb 14, 2022 6:55 PM

Like Lee, I am aware of a case where the Notice to Owner was invalid because it was not in substantially the statutory form. The statue was subsequently warning language. Section 713.06(2)(c) was subsequently changed to state “and must include the information and the warning contained in the following form….” This is slightly different than the language in section 713.08(3) but the intent is the same even though it does not include the term “must.”

Good luck,

Cary

Wm. Cary Wright
Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 | Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813.229.4135 | Fax: 813.229.4133
cwright@carltonfields.com

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:24 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Good morning Paul,
It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it.

“The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann.

Thanks,
Jack

[cid:image001.gif@01D821AA.77DD2C10]
Jack Taylor | Attorney
Direct Line: (321) 204-4012

Angius & Terry LLPhttp://angius-terry.com/
Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor
(954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200
www.constructiondefectlaw.com<../../../../../rbennett/Desktop/_Email%20Sig/www.constructiondefectlaw.com>

Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.comhttp://constructiondefectlaw.com/! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/ [youtube] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Good morning.

Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice.

Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one.

Curious what is being seen out there.

Paul

Paul S. Martin, Esq.
Law Offices of
Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A.
2134 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, FL 33020
USA

Phone 954.923.4604
Telefax 954.923.6545

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Herehttp://www.mimecast.com/products/.

Like Lee, I am aware of a case where the Notice to Owner was invalid because it was not in substantially the statutory form. The statue was subsequently warning language. Section 713.06(2)(c) was subsequently changed to state “and must include the information and the warning contained in the following form….” This is slightly different than the language in section 713.08(3) but the intent is the same even though it does not include the term “must.” Good luck, Cary Wm. Cary Wright Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 | Tampa, Florida 33607-5780 Direct: 813.229.4135 | Fax: 813.229.4133 cwright@carltonfields.com From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:24 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning Paul, It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it. “The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann. Thanks, Jack [cid:image001.gif@01D821AA.77DD2C10] Jack Taylor | Attorney Direct Line: (321) 204-4012 Angius & Terry LLP<http://angius-terry.com/> Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor (954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200 www.constructiondefectlaw.com<../../../../../rbennett/Desktop/_Email%20Sig/www.constructiondefectlaw.com> Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.com<http://constructiondefectlaw.com/>! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/> [youtube] <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz> [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning. Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice. Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one. Curious what is being seen out there. Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here<http://www.mimecast.com/products/>.

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Tue, Feb 15, 2022 1:46 PM

Thanks, Gentlemen, for the feedback. I agree with the NTO analysis. I also realize that 713.08(3) is not as specific and will allow an omission that does not prejudice the owner. It may be stronger than the 713.015 language that requires the warnings to be in contracts. However, the language does give the Leeway that I have not yet seen a court opinion decide.
Regards,

Paul
Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA
Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

-----Original Message-----
From: RPPTL CLC-Discussion clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2022 1:55 pm
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Like Lee, I am aware of a case where the Notice to Owner was invalid because it was not in substantially the statutory form. The statue was subsequently warning language. Section 713.06(2)(c) was subsequently changed to state “and must include the information and the warning contained in the following form….” This is slightly different than the language in section 713.08(3) but the intent is the same even though it does not include the term “must.” Good luck,

Cary Wm. Cary Wright
Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000|Tampa,Florida33607-5780
Direct: 813.229.4135 | Fax: 813.229.4133
cwright@carltonfields.com
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgOn Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:24 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning Paul, It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it. “The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form,and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann. Thanks, Jack Jack Taylor |Attorney Direct Line: (321) 204-4012 Angius & Terry LLP Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor (954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200 www.constructiondefectlaw.com Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.com! Don’t forget to like us on social media! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediatelyby calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.orgOn Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning. Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice. Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one. Curious what is being seen out there. Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545
___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived byMimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing asafer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out moreClick Here. _______________________________________________
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

Thanks, Gentlemen, for the feedback. I agree with the NTO analysis. I also realize that 713.08(3) is not as specific and will allow an omission that does not prejudice the owner. It may be stronger than the 713.015 language that requires the warnings to be in contracts. However, the language does give the Leeway that I have not yet seen a court opinion decide. Regards, Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. -----Original Message----- From: RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2022 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Like Lee, I am aware of a case where the Notice to Owner was invalid because it was not in substantially the statutory form. The statue was subsequently warning language. Section 713.06(2)(c) was subsequently changed to state “and must include the information and the warning contained in the following form….” This is slightly different than the language in section 713.08(3) but the intent is the same even though it does not include the term “must.” Good luck, Cary Wm. Cary Wright Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000|Tampa,Florida33607-5780 Direct: 813.229.4135 | Fax: 813.229.4133 cwright@carltonfields.com From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:24 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning Paul, It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it. “The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form,and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann. Thanks, Jack Jack Taylor |Attorney Direct Line: (321) 204-4012 Angius & Terry LLP Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor (954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200 www.constructiondefectlaw.com Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.com! Don’t forget to like us on social media! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediatelyby calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning. Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice. Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one. Curious what is being seen out there. Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived byMimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing asafer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out moreClick Here. _______________________________________________ CLC-Discussion mailing list CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Tue, Feb 15, 2022 4:24 PM

I had this issue come up years ago shortly after they amended the statute to require the warning. Client’s lien didn’t have the warning (no I didn’t do the lien 😊) and the Owner moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion because the owner couldn’t demonstrate prejudice as required by the statute: “However, the negligent inclusion or omission of any information in the claim of lien which has not prejudiced the owner does not constitute a default that operates to defeat an otherwise valid lien.”

My recollection is that the Owner argued the case law where a defective NTO invalidated a lien.

Good luck!

Gary L. Brown
Partner (Board Certified in Construction Law)
10360 West State Road 84
Fort Lauderdale | FL 33324
(954) 370-9970 | Office
(954) 448-1133 | Cell
(954) 382-1988 | Fax
Websitehttp://www.kelleykronenberg.com/| Email mailto:gbrown@kelleykronenberg.com | Biohttps://kelleykronenberg.com/attorney-profiles/gary-l-brown/

Kelley Kronenberg is operating at full-speed and will continue to provide the highest level of service to our clients while following the direction of the CDC and local officials.
[cid:image001.png@01D8225E.8D1D0870]
Important - Kelley Kronenberg utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a timely response to an email communication, please contact the intended recipient via phone in one of our office locations available herehttp://www.kelleykronenberg.com/offices/.

The information transmitted, including any attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 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 prohibited, and all liability arising therefrom is disclaimed. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:46 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Thanks, Gentlemen, for the feedback. I agree with the NTO analysis. I also realize that 713.08(3) is not as specific and will allow an omission that does not prejudice the owner. It may be stronger than the 713.015 language that requires the warnings to be in contracts. However, the language does give the Leeway that I have not yet seen a court opinion decide.

Regards,

Paul

Paul S. Martin, Esq.
Law Offices of
Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A.
2134 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, FL 33020
USA

Phone 954.923.4604
Telefax 954.923.6545

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

-----Original Message-----
From: RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2022 1:55 pm
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien
Like Lee, I am aware of a case where the Notice to Owner was invalid because it was not in substantially the statutory form. The statue was subsequently warning language. Section 713.06(2)(c) was subsequently changed to state “and must include the information and the warning contained in the following form….” This is slightly different than the language in section 713.08(3) but the intent is the same even though it does not include the term “must.”

Good luck,

Cary

Wm. Cary Wright
Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 | Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813.229.4135 | Fax: 813.229.4133
cwright@carltonfields.com mailto:cwright@carltonfields.com

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:24 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Good morning Paul,
It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it.

“The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann.

Thanks,
Jack

[cid:image003.gif@01D8225E.8C367900]
Jack Taylor | Attorney
Direct Line: (321) 204-4012

Angius & Terry LLPhttp://angius-terry.com/
Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor
(954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200
www.constructiondefectlaw.com http://www.constructiondefectlaw.com

Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.comhttp://constructiondefectlaw.com/! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/ [youtube] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Good morning.

Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice.

Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one.

Curious what is being seen out there.

Paul

Paul S. Martin, Esq.
Law Offices of
Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A.
2134 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, FL 33020
USA

Phone 954.923.4604
Telefax 954.923.6545

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Herehttp://www.mimecast.com/products/.

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

I had this issue come up years ago shortly after they amended the statute to require the warning. Client’s lien didn’t have the warning (no I didn’t do the lien 😊) and the Owner moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion because the owner couldn’t demonstrate prejudice as required by the statute: “However, the negligent inclusion or omission of any information in the claim of lien which has not prejudiced the owner does not constitute a default that operates to defeat an otherwise valid lien.” My recollection is that the Owner argued the case law where a defective NTO invalidated a lien. Good luck! Gary L. Brown Partner (Board Certified in Construction Law) 10360 West State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale | FL 33324 (954) 370-9970 | Office (954) 448-1133 | Cell (954) 382-1988 | Fax Website<http://www.kelleykronenberg.com/>| Email <mailto:gbrown@kelleykronenberg.com> | Bio<https://kelleykronenberg.com/attorney-profiles/gary-l-brown/> Kelley Kronenberg is operating at full-speed and will continue to provide the highest level of service to our clients while following the direction of the CDC and local officials. [cid:image001.png@01D8225E.8D1D0870] Important - Kelley Kronenberg utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a timely response to an email communication, please contact the intended recipient via phone in one of our office locations available here<http://www.kelleykronenberg.com/offices/>. The information transmitted, including any attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 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 prohibited, and all liability arising therefrom is disclaimed. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:46 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Thanks, Gentlemen, for the feedback. I agree with the NTO analysis. I also realize that 713.08(3) is not as specific and will allow an omission that does not prejudice the owner. It may be stronger than the 713.015 language that requires the warnings to be in contracts. However, the language does give the Leeway that I have not yet seen a court opinion decide. Regards, Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. -----Original Message----- From: RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2022 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Like Lee, I am aware of a case where the Notice to Owner was invalid because it was not in substantially the statutory form. The statue was subsequently warning language. Section 713.06(2)(c) was subsequently changed to state “and must include the information and the warning contained in the following form….” This is slightly different than the language in section 713.08(3) but the intent is the same even though it does not include the term “must.” Good luck, Cary Wm. Cary Wright Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 | Tampa, Florida 33607-5780 Direct: 813.229.4135 | Fax: 813.229.4133 cwright@carltonfields.com<mailto:cwright@carltonfields.com> From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:24 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning Paul, It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it. “The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann. Thanks, Jack [cid:image003.gif@01D8225E.8C367900] Jack Taylor | Attorney Direct Line: (321) 204-4012 Angius & Terry LLP<http://angius-terry.com/> Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor (954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200 www.constructiondefectlaw.com<http://www.constructiondefectlaw.com> Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.com<http://constructiondefectlaw.com/>! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/> [youtube] <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz> [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning. Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice. Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one. Curious what is being seen out there. Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here<http://www.mimecast.com/products/>. _______________________________________________ CLC-Discussion mailing list CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Tue, Feb 15, 2022 5:14 PM

Prejudice is always fact intensive. For example if the foreclosure complaint is filed 61 days than the owner was prejudiced by not receiving notice that it could shorten the term of the lien , etc.. I haven’t seen the NTO cases but I would imagine the owner wasn’t prejudiced because he did not pay the GC already.

…UNLESS THE OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY TAKES ACTION TO SHORTEN THE TIME PERIOD, THIS LIEN MAY REMAIN VALID FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF RECORDING, AND SHALL EXPIRE AND BECOME NULL AND VOID THEREAFTER UNLESS LEGAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMMENCED TO FORECLOSE OR TO DISCHARGE THIS LIEN.

Thanks,
Jack

[cid:image002.gif@01D82263.DF21F180]
Jack Taylor | Attorney
Direct Line: (321) 204-4012

Angius & Terry LLPhttp://angius-terry.com/
Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor
(954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200
www.constructiondefectlaw.com<../../../../../rbennett/Desktop/_Email%20Sig/www.constructiondefectlaw.com>

Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.comhttp://constructiondefectlaw.com/! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/ [youtube] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:24 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

I had this issue come up years ago shortly after they amended the statute to require the warning. Client’s lien didn’t have the warning (no I didn’t do the lien 😊) and the Owner moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion because the owner couldn’t demonstrate prejudice as required by the statute: “However, the negligent inclusion or omission of any information in the claim of lien which has not prejudiced the owner does not constitute a default that operates to defeat an otherwise valid lien.”

My recollection is that the Owner argued the case law where a defective NTO invalidated a lien.

Good luck!

Gary L. Brown
Partner (Board Certified in Construction Law)
10360 West State Road 84
Fort Lauderdale | FL 33324
(954) 370-9970 | Office
(954) 448-1133 | Cell
(954) 382-1988 | Fax
Websitehttp://www.kelleykronenberg.com/| Email mailto:gbrown@kelleykronenberg.com | Biohttps://kelleykronenberg.com/attorney-profiles/gary-l-brown/

Kelley Kronenberg is operating at full-speed and will continue to provide the highest level of service to our clients while following the direction of the CDC and local officials.
[cid:image007.png@01D82263.DF21F180]
Important - Kelley Kronenberg utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a timely response to an email communication, please contact the intended recipient via phone in one of our office locations available herehttp://www.kelleykronenberg.com/offices/.

The information transmitted, including any attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 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 prohibited, and all liability arising therefrom is disclaimed. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:46 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Thanks, Gentlemen, for the feedback. I agree with the NTO analysis. I also realize that 713.08(3) is not as specific and will allow an omission that does not prejudice the owner. It may be stronger than the 713.015 language that requires the warnings to be in contracts. However, the language does give the Leeway that I have not yet seen a court opinion decide.

Regards,

Paul

Paul S. Martin, Esq.
Law Offices of
Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A.
2134 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, FL 33020
USA

Phone 954.923.4604
Telefax 954.923.6545

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

-----Original Message-----
From: RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2022 1:55 pm
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien
Like Lee, I am aware of a case where the Notice to Owner was invalid because it was not in substantially the statutory form. The statue was subsequently warning language. Section 713.06(2)(c) was subsequently changed to state “and must include the information and the warning contained in the following form….” This is slightly different than the language in section 713.08(3) but the intent is the same even though it does not include the term “must.”

Good luck,

Cary

Wm. Cary Wright
Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 | Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Direct: 813.229.4135 | Fax: 813.229.4133
cwright@carltonfields.com mailto:cwright@carltonfields.com

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:24 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Good morning Paul,
It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it.

“The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann.

Thanks,
Jack

[cid:image002.gif@01D82263.DF21F180]
Jack Taylor | Attorney
Direct Line: (321) 204-4012

Angius & Terry LLPhttp://angius-terry.com/
Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor
(954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200
www.constructiondefectlaw.com http://www.constructiondefectlaw.com

Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.comhttp://constructiondefectlaw.com/! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/ [youtube] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien

Good morning.

Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice.

Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one.

Curious what is being seen out there.

Paul

Paul S. Martin, Esq.
Law Offices of
Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A.
2134 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, FL 33020
USA

Phone 954.923.4604
Telefax 954.923.6545

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender.

Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Herehttp://www.mimecast.com/products/.

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

Prejudice is always fact intensive. For example if the foreclosure complaint is filed 61 days than the owner was prejudiced by not receiving notice that it could shorten the term of the lien , etc.. I haven’t seen the NTO cases but I would imagine the owner wasn’t prejudiced because he did not pay the GC already. …UNLESS THE OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY TAKES ACTION TO SHORTEN THE TIME PERIOD, THIS LIEN MAY REMAIN VALID FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF RECORDING, AND SHALL EXPIRE AND BECOME NULL AND VOID THEREAFTER UNLESS LEGAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMMENCED TO FORECLOSE OR TO DISCHARGE THIS LIEN. Thanks, Jack [cid:image002.gif@01D82263.DF21F180] Jack Taylor | Attorney Direct Line: (321) 204-4012 Angius & Terry LLP<http://angius-terry.com/> Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor (954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200 www.constructiondefectlaw.com<../../../../../rbennett/Desktop/_Email%20Sig/www.constructiondefectlaw.com> Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.com<http://constructiondefectlaw.com/>! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/> [youtube] <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz> [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:24 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien I had this issue come up years ago shortly after they amended the statute to require the warning. Client’s lien didn’t have the warning (no I didn’t do the lien 😊) and the Owner moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion because the owner couldn’t demonstrate prejudice as required by the statute: “However, the negligent inclusion or omission of any information in the claim of lien which has not prejudiced the owner does not constitute a default that operates to defeat an otherwise valid lien.” My recollection is that the Owner argued the case law where a defective NTO invalidated a lien. Good luck! Gary L. Brown Partner (Board Certified in Construction Law) 10360 West State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale | FL 33324 (954) 370-9970 | Office (954) 448-1133 | Cell (954) 382-1988 | Fax Website<http://www.kelleykronenberg.com/>| Email <mailto:gbrown@kelleykronenberg.com> | Bio<https://kelleykronenberg.com/attorney-profiles/gary-l-brown/> Kelley Kronenberg is operating at full-speed and will continue to provide the highest level of service to our clients while following the direction of the CDC and local officials. [cid:image007.png@01D82263.DF21F180] Important - Kelley Kronenberg utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a timely response to an email communication, please contact the intended recipient via phone in one of our office locations available here<http://www.kelleykronenberg.com/offices/>. The information transmitted, including any attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 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 prohibited, and all liability arising therefrom is disclaimed. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:46 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Thanks, Gentlemen, for the feedback. I agree with the NTO analysis. I also realize that 713.08(3) is not as specific and will allow an omission that does not prejudice the owner. It may be stronger than the 713.015 language that requires the warnings to be in contracts. However, the language does give the Leeway that I have not yet seen a court opinion decide. Regards, Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. -----Original Message----- From: RPPTL CLC-Discussion <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2022 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Like Lee, I am aware of a case where the Notice to Owner was invalid because it was not in substantially the statutory form. The statue was subsequently warning language. Section 713.06(2)(c) was subsequently changed to state “and must include the information and the warning contained in the following form….” This is slightly different than the language in section 713.08(3) but the intent is the same even though it does not include the term “must.” Good luck, Cary Wm. Cary Wright Attorney at Law | Carlton Fields 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 | Tampa, Florida 33607-5780 Direct: 813.229.4135 | Fax: 813.229.4133 cwright@carltonfields.com<mailto:cwright@carltonfields.com> From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:24 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning Paul, It is a statuory requirement, see below. I haven’t seen an opinion negating the lien but I wouldn’t think the issue would make it to an appeals court. Maybe there is a trial court order out there but I am not aware of it. “The claim of lien shall be sufficient if it is in substantially the following form, and includes the following warning: “ § 713.08(3), Fla. Stat. Ann. Thanks, Jack [cid:image002.gif@01D82263.DF21F180] Jack Taylor | Attorney Direct Line: (321) 204-4012 Angius & Terry LLP<http://angius-terry.com/> Ft. Lauderdale | Orlando | Palm Harbor (954) 839-6200 (407) 624-3070 (727) 474-0200 www.constructiondefectlaw.com<http://www.constructiondefectlaw.com> Check out our new and improved website at constructiondefectlaw.com<http://constructiondefectlaw.com/>! Don’t forget to like us on social media! [Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/angiusandterry/> [youtube] <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnWtPz90yUDN9m6uagSG23OSZDdeCBgBz> [A close up of a sign Description automatically generated] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/angius-terry-llp-fl/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This communication contains information which (a) may be legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the addressee/s named. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee/s, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by calling (800) 680-4001. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:18 AM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Warning on Claim of Lien Good morning. Has anyone seen any court rulings that invalidated a Claim of Lien for not having the "WARNING" language on it? I have not seen any that finds there was prejudice or bring adversely affected for that language or the required language in the contract for the Construction Lien law notice. Similarly, I had not seen a Claim of Lien without the WARNING for awhile and have just run across one. Curious what is being seen out there. Paul Paul S. Martin, Esq. Law Offices of Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A. 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020 USA Phone 954.923.4604 Telefax 954.923.6545 ___________________________ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please immediately reply to the sender. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here<http://www.mimecast.com/products/>. _______________________________________________ CLC-Discussion mailing list CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion<http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion>