[CLC-Discussion] FSA 489.126 (2) (a) and (b)

[Wolf, Brian]

Steve:

The statute is fine. It requires the contractor to both apply within 30 days and start the work within 90 days of the permit issue date. Your facts show that the contractor satisfied one of two requirements; thus, the contractor violated the statute. Modifying the statute is not prudent.

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Fred Dudley
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:22 AM
To: steve at gebelofflaw.com; clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] FSA 489.126 (2) (a) and (b)

The use of “and/or” is not followed by legislative drafters because it leads to further ambiguities. However, placing an “or” between (a) and (b) should work, don’t you think?

Fred R. Dudley, Partner
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Dudley, Sellers & Healy, P. L.
SunTrust Financial Center, Suite 301
3522 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Cell: (850) 294-3471
Direct: (850)692-6368
dudley at mylicenselaw.com<mailto:dudley at mylicenselaw.com>


From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of steve at gebelofflaw.com
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:11 AM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] FSA 489.126 (2) (a) and (b)

I have a situation where a contractor took  more than 10%  deposit and did not apply for permits for 5 months.  Judge  ruled in my client's favor  on Breach of contract count, but would not apply   489.126  because  the statute has the word and  ( meaning Court taking plain meaning  held part (b)  also had to be satisfied  " Start work within 90 days).  ( I am trying to   get a  the Court to find theft under part (4)…(4) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of theft and shall be prosecuted and punished under s. 812.014.)


I belive Statute should say and/or .. In the scenario a contractor can take the deposit , never apply for permits  and be scott free.

I have not found any case law on this and  have been unable toresearch legislative history to get intent as too cost prohibitive for my client.

I argued to the Judge the legislative intent  was to protect  public ect..  Judge did not bite. Any advise or input . I believe clearly, this  needs to be changed in the Statute.

Thanks,

489.126 Moneys received by contractors.—

(1) For purposes of this section, the term “contractor” includes all definitions as set forth in s. 489.105<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0400-0499/0489/Sections/0489.105.html>(3), and any person performing or contracting or promising to perform work described therein, without regard to the licensure of the person.

(2) A contractor who receives, as initial payment, money totaling more than 10 percent of the contract price for repair, restoration, improvement, or construction to residential real property must:
(a) Apply for permits necessary to do work within 30 days after the date payment is made, except where the work does not require a permit under the applicable codes and ordinances, and

(b) Start the work within 90 days after the date all necessary permits for work, if any, are issued,


Stephen B. Gebeloff, Esq.

Stephen B. Gebeloff, P.A.
5255 North Federal Highway
Third Floor
Boca Raton, Florida   33487
(561)953-4600
Fax (561)953-4610
steve at gebelofflaw.com<mailto:steve at gebelofflaw.com>
www.flcollectionattorney.com<http://www.flcollectionattorney.com/>
www.floridacollectionattorney.net<http://www.floridacollectionattorney.net>





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20150223/cb185e81/attachment.html>