WH

William H. Beaver II, Esquire

Mon, Aug 8, 2011 9:41 PM

Hello Ms. Brindle:

Well, it appears, (and of course I was not at the hearing so, again, I use the term appears), that the Judge treated the "Amended" claim of lien as a new lien (despite the "amendment" language contained in the new lien) due to the work being provided under the contract up to and through the new final furnishing date. She then considered the action itself timely as it went to the "new" lien and new final furnishing date. Otherwise, you are correct in that the statute requires any amendment to be within the original statutory time frame, i.e., 90 days from final furnishing. It is confusing given the language utilized in the "Amended Claim of Lien". However, I believe my analysis is accurate given the new final furnishing date which would obviate the confines of the original lien and that no other legally plausible explanation is available. What was the your position regarding the new final furnishing date...in other words, did your client agree that work had been provided by the lienor pursuant to the direct contract up to and including the new lien date? If so, I think that further provides support for the position taken by the court. However, I would be interested to hear the responses from anyone else.

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Krista Brindle
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:14 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

Hi all,

I got a bad ruling this afternoon and I was wondering if any of you know of some awesome caselaw that is on point off the top of your head...here's the facts:

Plaintiff filed Claim of Lien on May 28, 2009, alleging the last work was done on March 4, 2009.

Plaintiff filed an Amended Claim of Lien on April 7, 2010, alleging the last work was done on March 2, 2010, but specifically stating that it was being filed to amend the claim of lien from '09.

Plaintiff filed suit to foreclose the Amended Claim of Lien on March 30, 2011.

We filed a Motion to Dismiss for the Defendant, stating that the Amended Claim of Lien was way too late, pursuant to §713.08(4)(b) and the case of Hayutin v. Cochran Const. Co., Inc.  

The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss stating that since the Plaintiff was amending the last date of work performed, and since the amended claim of lien was filed within 90 days of that new date, then it was timely.  

This seems to completely gut the statute and goes against the whole "strictly construed creature of statute" claim of lien law that I had learned.  Am I crazy and the Judge is right or is she off base and I should be filing a Motion for Rehearing as soon as I can?

Thanks in advance for all your help, all you wonderful brilliant people!

Krista L. Brindle, Esq.

Andrew S. Epstein, P.A.

2120 McGregor Boulevard

Fort Myers, Florida 33901

Telephone: (239) 791-LAWS (5297)

Facsimile: (239) 791-0100

Confidentiality: This e-mail communication is intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential information.  If you are not the addressee or an authorized representative, you are advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, or other dissemination or use of this communication or any information contained herein is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately advise the sender either by reply e-mail or call at (239) 791-5297; delete this communication and destroy all physical copies. 

All e-mail communications are electronically filtered for "spam" and "viruses." Filtering may result in communications being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) or delayed in reaching us.  Therefore, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your e-mail or that we will receive it in a timely manner.  Accordingly, important or time-sensitive communications should be sent to us by means other than e-mail.

William H. Beaver II, Esquire

GrayRobinson, P.A.
301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400
P.O. Box 3068 (32802-3068)
Orlando, Florida 32801
Main: 407-843-8880 | Fax: 407-244-5690
Email: William.Beaver@gray-robinson.com

This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender.

Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.

Hello Ms. Brindle: Well, it appears, (and of course I was not at the hearing so, again, I use the term appears), that the Judge treated the "Amended" claim of lien as a new lien (despite the "amendment" language contained in the new lien) due to the work being provided under the contract up to and through the new final furnishing date. She then considered the action itself timely as it went to the "new" lien and new final furnishing date. Otherwise, you are correct in that the statute requires any amendment to be within the original statutory time frame, i.e., 90 days from final furnishing. It is confusing given the language utilized in the "Amended Claim of Lien". However, I believe my analysis is accurate given the new final furnishing date which would obviate the confines of the original lien and that no other legally plausible explanation is available. What was the your position regarding the new final furnishing date...in other words, did your client agree that work had been provided by the lienor pursuant to the direct contract up to and including the new lien date? If so, I think that further provides support for the position taken by the court. However, I would be interested to hear the responses from anyone else. ________________________________ From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Krista Brindle Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:14 PM To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien Hi all, I got a bad ruling this afternoon and I was wondering if any of you know of some awesome caselaw that is on point off the top of your head...here's the facts: Plaintiff filed Claim of Lien on May 28, 2009, alleging the last work was done on March 4, 2009. Plaintiff filed an Amended Claim of Lien on April 7, 2010, alleging the last work was done on March 2, 2010, but specifically stating that it was being filed to amend the claim of lien from '09. Plaintiff filed suit to foreclose the Amended Claim of Lien on March 30, 2011. We filed a Motion to Dismiss for the Defendant, stating that the Amended Claim of Lien was way too late, pursuant to §713.08(4)(b) and the case of Hayutin v. Cochran Const. Co., Inc. The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss stating that since the Plaintiff was amending the last date of work performed, and since the amended claim of lien was filed within 90 days of that new date, then it was timely. This seems to completely gut the statute and goes against the whole "strictly construed creature of statute" claim of lien law that I had learned. Am I crazy and the Judge is right or is she off base and I should be filing a Motion for Rehearing as soon as I can? Thanks in advance for all your help, all you wonderful brilliant people! Krista L. Brindle, Esq. Andrew S. Epstein, P.A. 2120 McGregor Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Telephone: (239) 791-LAWS (5297) Facsimile: (239) 791-0100 Confidentiality: This e-mail communication is intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the addressee or an authorized representative, you are advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, or other dissemination or use of this communication or any information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately advise the sender either by reply e-mail or call at (239) 791-5297; delete this communication and destroy all physical copies. All e-mail communications are electronically filtered for "spam" and "viruses." Filtering may result in communications being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) or delayed in reaching us. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your e-mail or that we will receive it in a timely manner. Accordingly, important or time-sensitive communications should be sent to us by means other than e-mail. ________________________________ William H. Beaver II, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 P.O. Box 3068 (32802-3068) Orlando, Florida 32801 Main: 407-843-8880 | Fax: 407-244-5690 Email: William.Beaver@gray-robinson.com This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.

TM

Tom McKeel

Tue, Aug 9, 2011 1:07 PM

For what it is worth, I enjoy and benefit from the questions and answers.
The reading is like a continuing CLE.

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry
Leiby
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:34 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

Krista,

I dont think that you are crazy, but I think that the trial court was
correct. In Hayutin the amended claim of lien was recorded more than 90
days after the date of last work recited in the amended claim of lien.

You still may be able to argue that you are prejudiced by the amendment, if
you can prove any prejudice. The lienor must still prove that it worked up
to the date alleged in the amended claim of lien, which work was not
warranty work.

Suggestion: When you ask a question like this you should include your
personal e-mail address so that responses need not go to all members of the
committee.

Larry R. Leiby, Esq.

Malka & Kravitz, P.A.

1300 Sawgrass Corp. Pkwy., Suite 100

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33323

Phone: 954-514-0984

Fax: 954-514-0985

e-mail: leiby@mkpalaw.com

Board Certified in Construction Law

Certified Circuit Court Civil Mediator

Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Krista
Brindle
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:14 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

Hi all,

I got a bad ruling this afternoon and I was wondering if any of you know of
some awesome caselaw that is on point off the top of your headheres the
facts:

Plaintiff filed Claim of Lien on May 28, 2009, alleging the last work was
done on March 4, 2009.

Plaintiff filed an Amended Claim of Lien on April 7, 2010, alleging the last
work was done on March 2, 2010, but specifically stating that it was being
filed to amend the claim of lien from 09.

Plaintiff filed suit to foreclose the Amended Claim of Lien on March 30,
2011.

We filed a Motion to Dismiss for the Defendant, stating that the Amended
Claim of Lien was way too late, pursuant to §713.08(4)(b) and the case of
Hayutin v. Cochran Const. Co., Inc.

The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss stating that since the Plaintiff was
amending the last date of work performed, and since the amended claim of
lien was filed within 90 days of that new date, then it was timely.

This seems to completely gut the statute and goes against the whole
strictly construed creature of statute claim of lien law that I had
learned. Am I crazy and the Judge is right or is she off base and I should
be filing a Motion for Rehearing as soon as I can?

Thanks in advance for all your help, all you wonderful brilliant people!

Krista L. Brindle, Esq.

Andrew S. Epstein, P.A.

2120 McGregor Boulevard

Fort Myers, Florida 33901

Telephone: (239) 791-LAWS (5297)

Facsimile: (239) 791-0100

Confidentiality: This e-mail communication is intended solely for the
addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential
information. If you are not the addressee or an authorized representative,
you are advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, or other
dissemination or use of this communication or any information contained
herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately advise the sender either by reply e-mail or call
at (239) 791-5297; delete this communication and destroy all physical
copies.

All e-mail communications are electronically filtered for "spam" and
"viruses." Filtering may result in communications being quarantined (i.e.,
potentially not received at our site at all) or delayed in reaching us.
Therefore, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your e-mail or that we
will receive it in a timely manner. Accordingly, important or
time-sensitive communications should be sent to us by means other than
e-mail.

For what it is worth, I enjoy and benefit from the questions and answers. The reading is like a continuing CLE. _____ From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry Leiby Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:34 PM To: RPPTL constructionlaw Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien Krista, I dont think that you are crazy, but I think that the trial court was correct. In Hayutin the amended claim of lien was recorded more than 90 days after the date of last work recited in the amended claim of lien. You still may be able to argue that you are prejudiced by the amendment, if you can prove any prejudice. The lienor must still prove that it worked up to the date alleged in the amended claim of lien, which work was not warranty work. Suggestion: When you ask a question like this you should include your personal e-mail address so that responses need not go to all members of the committee. Larry R. Leiby, Esq. Malka & Kravitz, P.A. 1300 Sawgrass Corp. Pkwy., Suite 100 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33323 Phone: 954-514-0984 Fax: 954-514-0985 e-mail: leiby@mkpalaw.com Board Certified in Construction Law Certified Circuit Court Civil Mediator Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Krista Brindle Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:14 PM To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien Hi all, I got a bad ruling this afternoon and I was wondering if any of you know of some awesome caselaw that is on point off the top of your headheres the facts: Plaintiff filed Claim of Lien on May 28, 2009, alleging the last work was done on March 4, 2009. Plaintiff filed an Amended Claim of Lien on April 7, 2010, alleging the last work was done on March 2, 2010, but specifically stating that it was being filed to amend the claim of lien from 09. Plaintiff filed suit to foreclose the Amended Claim of Lien on March 30, 2011. We filed a Motion to Dismiss for the Defendant, stating that the Amended Claim of Lien was way too late, pursuant to §713.08(4)(b) and the case of Hayutin v. Cochran Const. Co., Inc. The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss stating that since the Plaintiff was amending the last date of work performed, and since the amended claim of lien was filed within 90 days of that new date, then it was timely. This seems to completely gut the statute and goes against the whole strictly construed creature of statute claim of lien law that I had learned. Am I crazy and the Judge is right or is she off base and I should be filing a Motion for Rehearing as soon as I can? Thanks in advance for all your help, all you wonderful brilliant people! Krista L. Brindle, Esq. Andrew S. Epstein, P.A. 2120 McGregor Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Telephone: (239) 791-LAWS (5297) Facsimile: (239) 791-0100 Confidentiality: This e-mail communication is intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the addressee or an authorized representative, you are advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, or other dissemination or use of this communication or any information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately advise the sender either by reply e-mail or call at (239) 791-5297; delete this communication and destroy all physical copies. All e-mail communications are electronically filtered for "spam" and "viruses." Filtering may result in communications being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) or delayed in reaching us. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your e-mail or that we will receive it in a timely manner. Accordingly, important or time-sensitive communications should be sent to us by means other than e-mail. _____

EB

Eric Belsky

Tue, Aug 9, 2011 2:31 PM

Personally, I enjoy reading these back-and-forth dialogues and really appreciate being included on the mailing list! The discussion is always lively and enlightening (even if purely academic) and on almost all occasions these exchanges tend to be pertinent to either something I'm working on, something I've got on the back-burner, or something likely to present itself in the future (which is why I save these discussions in my "Legal Research" folder for future reference). :) Of course, if it's something I genuinely have no interest in whatsoever, simply hitting the Delete button is no great hardship... Thanks!

Leiter || Belsky
[cid:image001.jpg@01CC567F.82B33640]

Eric G. Belsky, Esq.
Leiter & Belsky, P.A.
Blackstone Building, Third Floor
707 Southeast Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
954.462.3116 Telephone
954.761.8990 Facsimile
ebelsky@jlblaw.com mailto:ebelsky@jlblaw.com

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Tom McKeel
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:08 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

For what it is worth, I enjoy and benefit from the questions and answers. The reading is like a continuing CLE.

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]mailto:[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry Leiby
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:34 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

Krista,

I don't think that you are crazy, but I think that the trial court was correct. In Hayutin the amended claim of lien was recorded more than 90 days after the date of last work recited in the amended claim of lien.

You still may be able to argue that you are prejudiced by the amendment, if you can prove any prejudice. The lienor must still prove that it worked up to the date alleged in the amended claim of lien, which work was not warranty work.

Suggestion: When you ask a question like this you should include your personal e-mail address so that responses need not go to all members of the committee.

Larry R. Leiby, Esq.
Malka & Kravitz, P.A.
1300 Sawgrass Corp. Pkwy., Suite 100
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33323
Phone: 954-514-0984
Fax: 954-514-0985

e-mail: leiby@mkpalaw.com mailto:leiby@mkpalaw.com

Board Certified in Construction Law
Certified Circuit Court Civil Mediator
Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]mailto:[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Krista Brindle
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:14 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

Hi all,

I got a bad ruling this afternoon and I was wondering if any of you know of some awesome caselaw that is on point off the top of your head...here's the facts:

Plaintiff filed Claim of Lien on May 28, 2009, alleging the last work was done on March 4, 2009.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Claim of Lien on April 7, 2010, alleging the last work was done on March 2, 2010, but specifically stating that it was being filed to amend the claim of lien from '09.
Plaintiff filed suit to foreclose the Amended Claim of Lien on March 30, 2011.
We filed a Motion to Dismiss for the Defendant, stating that the Amended Claim of Lien was way too late, pursuant to §713.08(4)(b) and the case of Hayutin v. Cochran Const. Co., Inc.
The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss stating that since the Plaintiff was amending the last date of work performed, and since the amended claim of lien was filed within 90 days of that new date, then it was timely.

This seems to completely gut the statute and goes against the whole "strictly construed creature of statute" claim of lien law that I had learned. Am I crazy and the Judge is right or is she off base and I should be filing a Motion for Rehearing as soon as I can?

Thanks in advance for all your help, all you wonderful brilliant people!

Krista L. Brindle, Esq.
Andrew S. Epstein, P.A.
2120 McGregor Boulevard
Fort Myers, Florida 33901
Telephone: (239) 791-LAWS (5297)
Facsimile: (239) 791-0100

Confidentiality: This e-mail communication is intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the addressee or an authorized representative, you are advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, or other dissemination or use of this communication or any information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately advise the sender either by reply e-mail or call at (239) 791-5297; delete this communication and destroy all physical copies.

All e-mail communications are electronically filtered for "spam" and "viruses." Filtering may result in communications being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) or delayed in reaching us. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your e-mail or that we will receive it in a timely manner. Accordingly, important or time-sensitive communications should be sent to us by means other than e-mail.

Personally, I enjoy reading these back-and-forth dialogues and really appreciate being included on the mailing list! The discussion is always lively and enlightening (even if purely academic) and on almost all occasions these exchanges tend to be pertinent to either something I'm working on, something I've got on the back-burner, or something likely to present itself in the future (which is why I save these discussions in my "Legal Research" folder for future reference). :) Of course, if it's something I genuinely have no interest in whatsoever, simply hitting the Delete button is no great hardship... Thanks! Leiter || Belsky [cid:image001.jpg@01CC567F.82B33640] Eric G. Belsky, Esq. Leiter & Belsky, P.A. Blackstone Building, Third Floor 707 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 954.462.3116 Telephone 954.761.8990 Facsimile ebelsky@jlblaw.com<mailto:ebelsky@jlblaw.com> ________________________________ From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Tom McKeel Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:08 AM To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien For what it is worth, I enjoy and benefit from the questions and answers. The reading is like a continuing CLE. ________________________________ From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]<mailto:[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]> On Behalf Of Larry Leiby Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:34 PM To: RPPTL constructionlaw Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien Krista, I don't think that you are crazy, but I think that the trial court was correct. In Hayutin the amended claim of lien was recorded more than 90 days after the date of last work recited in the amended claim of lien. You still may be able to argue that you are prejudiced by the amendment, if you can prove any prejudice. The lienor must still prove that it worked up to the date alleged in the amended claim of lien, which work was not warranty work. Suggestion: When you ask a question like this you should include your personal e-mail address so that responses need not go to all members of the committee. Larry R. Leiby, Esq. Malka & Kravitz, P.A. 1300 Sawgrass Corp. Pkwy., Suite 100 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33323 Phone: 954-514-0984 Fax: 954-514-0985 e-mail: leiby@mkpalaw.com<mailto:leiby@mkpalaw.com> Board Certified in Construction Law Certified Circuit Court Civil Mediator Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]<mailto:[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org]> On Behalf Of Krista Brindle Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:14 PM To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien Hi all, I got a bad ruling this afternoon and I was wondering if any of you know of some awesome caselaw that is on point off the top of your head...here's the facts: Plaintiff filed Claim of Lien on May 28, 2009, alleging the last work was done on March 4, 2009. Plaintiff filed an Amended Claim of Lien on April 7, 2010, alleging the last work was done on March 2, 2010, but specifically stating that it was being filed to amend the claim of lien from '09. Plaintiff filed suit to foreclose the Amended Claim of Lien on March 30, 2011. We filed a Motion to Dismiss for the Defendant, stating that the Amended Claim of Lien was way too late, pursuant to §713.08(4)(b) and the case of Hayutin v. Cochran Const. Co., Inc. The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss stating that since the Plaintiff was amending the last date of work performed, and since the amended claim of lien was filed within 90 days of that new date, then it was timely. This seems to completely gut the statute and goes against the whole "strictly construed creature of statute" claim of lien law that I had learned. Am I crazy and the Judge is right or is she off base and I should be filing a Motion for Rehearing as soon as I can? Thanks in advance for all your help, all you wonderful brilliant people! Krista L. Brindle, Esq. Andrew S. Epstein, P.A. 2120 McGregor Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Telephone: (239) 791-LAWS (5297) Facsimile: (239) 791-0100 Confidentiality: This e-mail communication is intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the addressee or an authorized representative, you are advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, or other dissemination or use of this communication or any information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately advise the sender either by reply e-mail or call at (239) 791-5297; delete this communication and destroy all physical copies. All e-mail communications are electronically filtered for "spam" and "viruses." Filtering may result in communications being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) or delayed in reaching us. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your e-mail or that we will receive it in a timely manner. Accordingly, important or time-sensitive communications should be sent to us by means other than e-mail. ________________________________

FB

Fred Barnes

Tue, Aug 9, 2011 2:38 PM

Ditto.

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Eric
Belsky
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:32 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

Personally, I enjoy reading these back-and-forth dialogues and really
appreciate being included on the mailing list! The discussion is always
lively and enlightening (even if purely academic) and on almost all
occasions these exchanges tend to be pertinent to either something Im
working on, something Ive got on the back-burner, or something likely to
present itself in the future (which is why I save these discussions in my
Legal Research folder for future reference). J Of course, if its
something I genuinely have no interest in whatsoever, simply hitting the
Delete button is no great hardship... Thanks!

Leiter || Belsky

Description: Scales_Logo.jpg

Eric G. Belsky, Esq.

Leiter & Belsky, P.A.

Blackstone Building, Third Floor

707 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

954.462.3116 Telephone

954.761.8990 Facsimile

mailto:ebelsky@jlblaw.com ebelsky@jlblaw.com

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Tom
McKeel
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:08 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien