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

Mon Feb 23 07:06:25 PST 2015

The statute says what the contractor must do: apply for permits within 30 days AND begin work within 90 days.  Those obligations should be, and are, stated in the conjunctive.  If the contractor does not comply with either of the requirements, the contractor should be liable.  I think the court simply misconstrued the statute, reading it as if it stated preconditions to suit, and then read them in the conjunctive.

Thomas M Dillon

Email: lawtmd at gmail.com

Florida Bar No. 673064

Thomas M Dillon, PA

1477 Park Beach Cir. Apt. 32

Punta Gorda, FL 33950-5252

Phone: 941-626-6832

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

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

www.flcollectionattorney.com <http://www.flcollectionattorney.com/> 

www.floridacollectionattorney.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20150223/fc67e461/attachment.html>