Empathy List Archives

WH

William H. Beaver II, Esquire

Tue, Aug 9, 2011 4:40 PM

For what it is worth, I agree. Regardless of importance, if I simply do not immediately have the time to read the comments, I merely save them or forward them to my assistant, who builds a file, and go back and read them. There are a tremendous number of very talented attorneys who belong to this "group" and their insight is very interesting to me. I really appreciate those who will take the time to provide that insight.

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:52 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

I too find the dialogues useful and informative at times.  When I don't have a burning interest in the subject matter discussed I simply save them to a research folder or delete them.  For what it is worth, I feel that the benefits of receiving the information outweigh the hassle of deleting those e-mails which do not hold my interest.

Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824

THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A  CONFIDENTIAL 
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED 
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION 
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE 
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR; 
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT 
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE 
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER 
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS 
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of leslie.tomczak@akerman.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:24 AM
To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

I personally like the dialogue on such issues (as a learning tool).  

Leslie Miller Tomczak

Shareholder, LEED AP

Akerman Senterfitt | 350 East Las Olas Boulevard | Suite 1600 | Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301  

Dir: 954.759.8926 | Main: 954.463.2700 | Fax: 954.463.2224

leslie.tomczak@akerman.com 

V Card <http://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=673>  | Bio <http://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=673>  | akerman.com <http://www.akerman.com673>  

 <http://www.akerman.com/akermanlogo4.gif> 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you. 

CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry Leiby
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:10 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

There have been complaints in the past about the time to review such communication when members feel that they are not interested in the topic.   

I also see the other educational point of view and defer to our chair, Herr Tritt, to establish policy.  

My prior understanding was that there was concern expressed by some members about being bombarded on a topic. 

There is also the issue that some members may respond privately if they are concerned about others seeing the response (for various reasons), which is an option at any time if the e-mail address is given (otherwise to be looked up).

Perhaps the initial question (which obviously goes to the entire list) and any first responses (to go to the list), with further discussion on the issue being either: 

1) public to all on the list, using discretion to not oversaturate.  

2) limited to the people communicating person to person.  

Members can always choose the person to person communication.

I thought that we had addressed this issue in the past but I don't find any record of it.

Herr Tritt?  Executive decision or meeting agenda item?

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 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 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). J  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

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] 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

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 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.

For what it is worth, I agree. Regardless of importance, if I simply do not immediately have the time to read the comments, I merely save them or forward them to my assistant, who builds a file, and go back and read them. There are a tremendous number of very talented attorneys who belong to this "group" and their insight is very interesting to me. I really appreciate those who will take the time to provide that insight. ________________________________ From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:52 AM To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw' Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications I too find the dialogues useful and informative at times. When I don't have a burning interest in the subject matter discussed I simply save them to a research folder or delete them. For what it is worth, I feel that the benefits of receiving the information outweigh the hassle of deleting those e-mails which do not hold my interest. Steven F. Thompson, Esq. Thompson & Brooks 412 E. Madison St., Ste 900 Tampa, Fl. 33602 813-387-1821 Fax 813-387-1824 THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR; AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU. ________________________________ From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of leslie.tomczak@akerman.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:24 AM To: constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications I personally like the dialogue on such issues (as a learning tool). Leslie Miller Tomczak Shareholder, LEED AP Akerman Senterfitt | 350 East Las Olas Boulevard | Suite 1600 | Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Dir: 954.759.8926 | Main: 954.463.2700 | Fax: 954.463.2224 leslie.tomczak@akerman.com V Card <http://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=673> | Bio <http://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=673> | akerman.com <http://www.akerman.com673> <http://www.akerman.com/akermanlogo4.gif> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment. ________________________________ From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry Leiby Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:10 AM To: RPPTL constructionlaw Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications There have been complaints in the past about the time to review such communication when members feel that they are not interested in the topic. I also see the other educational point of view and defer to our chair, Herr Tritt, to establish policy. My prior understanding was that there was concern expressed by some members about being bombarded on a topic. There is also the issue that some members may respond privately if they are concerned about others seeing the response (for various reasons), which is an option at any time if the e-mail address is given (otherwise to be looked up). Perhaps the initial question (which obviously goes to the entire list) and any first responses (to go to the list), with further discussion on the issue being either: 1) public to all on the list, using discretion to not oversaturate. 2) limited to the people communicating person to person. Members can always choose the person to person communication. I thought that we had addressed this issue in the past but I don't find any record of it. Herr Tritt? Executive decision or meeting agenda item? 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 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 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). J 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 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] 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 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 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.

WE

Whelan, Ed

Tue, Aug 9, 2011 6:29 PM

Larry,

This never happened under prior chairs. In the future the members should think twice before nominating a Jacksonville lawyer chair of the committee. It all starts at the top.

[cid:image002.jpg@01CC569F.F5B1A2B0]
Edward M. Whelan | Attorney
Board Certified in Construction Law, Florida
225 Water Street, Suite 1750
Jacksonville, FL 32202
P 904-350-7172 C 904-553-2940 F 904-354-2170
gunster.comhttp://www.gunster.com/ | View my biohttp://www.gunster.com/attorney/Edward-M-Whelan/

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry Leiby
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:10 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

There have been complaints in the past about the time to review such communication when members feel that they are not interested in the topic.
I also see the other educational point of view and defer to our chair, Herr Tritt, to establish policy.
My prior understanding was that there was concern expressed by some members about being bombarded on a topic.
There is also the issue that some members may respond privately if they are concerned about others seeing the response (for various reasons), which is an option at any time if the e-mail address is given (otherwise to be looked up).

Perhaps the initial question (which obviously goes to the entire list) and any first responses (to go to the list), with further discussion on the issue being either:

public to all on the list, using discretion to not oversaturate.
limited to the people communicating person to person.

Members can always choose the person to person communication.

I thought that we had addressed this issue in the past but I don't find any record of it.

Herr Tritt? Executive decision or meeting agenda item?

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 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 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:image003.jpg@01CC569F.F5B1A2B0]

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.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. Click the following hyperlink to view the complete Gunster IRS Disclosure & Confidentiality note.

http://www.gunster.com/terms-of-use/

Larry, This never happened under prior chairs. In the future the members should think twice before nominating a Jacksonville lawyer chair of the committee. It all starts at the top. [cid:image002.jpg@01CC569F.F5B1A2B0] Edward M. Whelan | Attorney Board Certified in Construction Law, Florida 225 Water Street, Suite 1750 Jacksonville, FL 32202 P 904-350-7172 C 904-553-2940 F 904-354-2170 gunster.com<http://www.gunster.com/> | View my bio<http://www.gunster.com/attorney/Edward-M-Whelan/> From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry Leiby Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:10 AM To: RPPTL constructionlaw Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications There have been complaints in the past about the time to review such communication when members feel that they are not interested in the topic. I also see the other educational point of view and defer to our chair, Herr Tritt, to establish policy. My prior understanding was that there was concern expressed by some members about being bombarded on a topic. There is also the issue that some members may respond privately if they are concerned about others seeing the response (for various reasons), which is an option at any time if the e-mail address is given (otherwise to be looked up). Perhaps the initial question (which obviously goes to the entire list) and any first responses (to go to the list), with further discussion on the issue being either: 1) public to all on the list, using discretion to not oversaturate. 2) limited to the people communicating person to person. Members can always choose the person to person communication. I thought that we had addressed this issue in the past but I don't find any record of it. Herr Tritt? Executive decision or meeting agenda item? 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 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 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:image003.jpg@01CC569F.F5B1A2B0] 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. ________________________________ ________________________________ Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. Click the following hyperlink to view the complete Gunster IRS Disclosure & Confidentiality note. http://www.gunster.com/terms-of-use/

JR

Jeff Regan

Tue, Aug 9, 2011 6:52 PM

Well said.

Jeffrey C. Regan

Florida Bar Board Certified in

Business Litigation

and Construction Law

9905 Old St. Augustine Rd., Suite 400

Jacksonville, FL 32257

904-356-0035 (direct)

904-356-8050 (fax)

www.rzwlaw.com http://www.rzwlaw.com/

The information in this message, and its attachments, is confidential and may also be covered by the attorney-client and attorney work product privilege. This information is intended only for the use of the individuals to whom this message is addressed. You are hereby notified that any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately if this message was delivered to you in error.

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Whelan, Ed
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:29 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

Larry,

This never happened under prior chairs. In the future the members should think twice before nominating a Jacksonville lawyer chair of the committee. It all starts at the top.

                 Edward M. Whelan | Attorney
                 Board Certified in Construction Law, Florida

                 225 Water Street, Suite 1750
                 Jacksonville, FL 32202
                 P 904-350-7172  C 904-553-2940  F 904-354-2170
                 gunster.com <http://www.gunster.com/>    |   View my bio <http://www.gunster.com/attorney/Edward-M-Whelan/>

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry Leiby
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:10 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

There have been complaints in the past about the time to review such communication when members feel that they are not interested in the topic.

I also see the other educational point of view and defer to our chair, Herr Tritt, to establish policy.

My prior understanding was that there was concern expressed by some members about being bombarded on a topic.

There is also the issue that some members may respond privately if they are concerned about others seeing the response (for various reasons), which is an option at any time if the e-mail address is given (otherwise to be looked up).

Perhaps the initial question (which obviously goes to the entire list) and any first responses (to go to the list), with further discussion on the issue being either:

public to all on the list, using discretion to not oversaturate.
limited to the people communicating person to person.

Members can always choose the person to person communication.

I thought that we had addressed this issue in the past but I don't find any record of it.

Herr Tritt? Executive decision or meeting agenda item?

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 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 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

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:%5bmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%5d 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

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:%5bmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%5d 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.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. Click the following hyperlink to view the complete Gunster IRS Disclosure & Confidentiality note.

http://www.gunster.com/terms-of-use/

Well said. Jeffrey C. Regan Florida Bar Board Certified in Business Litigation and Construction Law 9905 Old St. Augustine Rd., Suite 400 Jacksonville, FL 32257 904-356-0035 (direct) 904-356-8050 (fax) www.rzwlaw.com <http://www.rzwlaw.com/> The information in this message, and its attachments, is confidential and may also be covered by the attorney-client and attorney work product privilege. This information is intended only for the use of the individuals to whom this message is addressed. You are hereby notified that any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately if this message was delivered to you in error. ________________________________ From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Whelan, Ed Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:29 PM To: RPPTL constructionlaw Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications Larry, This never happened under prior chairs. In the future the members should think twice before nominating a Jacksonville lawyer chair of the committee. It all starts at the top. Edward M. Whelan | Attorney Board Certified in Construction Law, Florida 225 Water Street, Suite 1750 Jacksonville, FL 32202 P 904-350-7172 C 904-553-2940 F 904-354-2170 gunster.com <http://www.gunster.com/> | View my bio <http://www.gunster.com/attorney/Edward-M-Whelan/> From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry Leiby Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:10 AM To: RPPTL constructionlaw Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications There have been complaints in the past about the time to review such communication when members feel that they are not interested in the topic. I also see the other educational point of view and defer to our chair, Herr Tritt, to establish policy. My prior understanding was that there was concern expressed by some members about being bombarded on a topic. There is also the issue that some members may respond privately if they are concerned about others seeing the response (for various reasons), which is an option at any time if the e-mail address is given (otherwise to be looked up). Perhaps the initial question (which obviously goes to the entire list) and any first responses (to go to the list), with further discussion on the issue being either: 1) public to all on the list, using discretion to not oversaturate. 2) limited to the people communicating person to person. Members can always choose the person to person communication. I thought that we had addressed this issue in the past but I don't find any record of it. Herr Tritt? Executive decision or meeting agenda item? 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 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 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 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:%5bmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%5d> 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 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:%5bmailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org%5d> 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. ________________________________ ________________________________ Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. Click the following hyperlink to view the complete Gunster IRS Disclosure & Confidentiality note. http://www.gunster.com/terms-of-use/

ME

Michael E. Milne

Tue, Aug 9, 2011 6:54 PM

Ouch

[Description: http://www.kubickidraper.com/misc/KD-SIG.jpg]http://www.kubickidraper.com/

Michael E. Milne
Shareholder
Board Certified in Construction Law

Direct (407) 419-3849
Fax (407) 245-7685
mem@kubickidraper.com mailto:mem@kubickidraper.com

201 S. Orange Avenue Suite 475
Orlando, Florida 32801

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Whelan, Ed
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:29 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

Larry,

This never happened under prior chairs. In the future the members should think twice before nominating a Jacksonville lawyer chair of the committee. It all starts at the top.

[http://gunsternet/myBizCardSignature/images/glogoflbiz.jpg]
Edward M. Whelan | Attorney
Board Certified in Construction Law, Florida
225 Water Street, Suite 1750
Jacksonville, FL 32202
P 904-350-7172 C 904-553-2940 F 904-354-2170
gunster.comhttp://www.gunster.com/ | View my biohttp://www.gunster.com/attorney/Edward-M-Whelan/

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry Leiby
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:10 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

There have been complaints in the past about the time to review such communication when members feel that they are not interested in the topic.
I also see the other educational point of view and defer to our chair, Herr Tritt, to establish policy.
My prior understanding was that there was concern expressed by some members about being bombarded on a topic.
There is also the issue that some members may respond privately if they are concerned about others seeing the response (for various reasons), which is an option at any time if the e-mail address is given (otherwise to be looked up).

Perhaps the initial question (which obviously goes to the entire list) and any first responses (to go to the list), with further discussion on the issue being either:

public to all on the list, using discretion to not oversaturate.
limited to the people communicating person to person.

Members can always choose the person to person communication.

I thought that we had addressed this issue in the past but I don't find any record of it.

Herr Tritt? Executive decision or meeting agenda item?

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] 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 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
[Description: Scales_Logo.jpg]