[CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?:
George R. Truitt
George.Truitt at csklegal.com
Thu Jan 8 07:27:00 PST 2015
Agreed
>
George R. Truitt
mailto:George.Truitt at csklegal.com
Tel:305-350-5331
Fax:305-373-2294
Cole, Scott & Kissane Building
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami
Florida 33156
http://www.csklegal.com
-----------------------------
[Insert your disclaimer here]
-----------------------------
On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Gibbons, Michael <Michael.Gibbons at lowndes-law.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks George. The Court's discussion is directly on point. I would say, in summary, that the case does support Fred's local law argument but not as strongly as his emails suggest. Importantly, the Court held it was error for the trial court to automatically (and without engaging in the nuanced analysis laid out by the appellate court) rule a subcontract or contract void and unenforceable due to non-compliance with a local licensing ordinance. The court noted that a determination of unenforceability would be unlikely IF the lienor were a subcontractor and the work was done in accordance with contract documents and applicable codes.
>
> So, it is a mistake as a practitioner, in my opinion, to operate under the belief that violation of local code ipso facto renders the contract or lien void and unenforceable. There is a nuanced analysis that must be applied and that in many instances points to enforceability of the contract notwithstanding violation of local licensure laws.
>
> Michael R. Gibbons
> Shareholder
> Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.
> 215 N. Eola Drive
> Orlando, FL 32801
> Phone: 407-418-6378
> Fax: 407-843-4444
> email: michael.gibbons at lowndes-law.com
> website: http://www.lowndes-law.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George R. Truitt [mailto:George.Truitt at csklegal.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 10:06 AM
> To: Gibbons, Michael; 'Fred Dudley'
> Cc: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org; Weintraub, Lee; David Salazar
> Subject: RE: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?:
>
> Interesting case, dealing with prior and amended version of statute. It appears that lack of local licensure is still alive in the 3rd DCA based on balancing test.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George R. Truitt
>
> mailto:George.Truitt at csklegal.com
> Tel:305-350-5331
> Fax:305-373-2294
>
> Cole, Scott & Kissane Building
> 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 Miami Florida 33156 http://www.csklegal.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> [Insert your disclaimer here]
> -----------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gibbons, Michael [mailto:Michael.Gibbons at lowndes-law.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:47 AM
> To: 'Fred Dudley'
> Cc: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org; Weintraub, Lee
> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?:
>
> This is simply wrong. First, public policy is expressed by the action of the Legislature. The Florida Legislature, over the years, has made it abundantly clear that it is state licensure and not local licensure that determines the unenforceability of a mechanic's lien and contract. Take a look at the older versions of Fla. Stat. 713.02(7) back in 1997 for example. It used to read that no lien shall exist in favor of any contractor, sub or sub-sub unless they are "licensed as a contractor pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction within which she or he is doing business". Now, IF that were still the law, you would be correct. But that law was repealed many years ago and its replacement is far narrower and takes a more surgical view over the broad club in the former law. BOTH Fla. Stat. 489.128 and 713.02(7) now expressly link loss of lien/contract rights to definition of "contractor" under Ch. 489.
>
> Your argument relying on local licensure laws also fails to account for the following express language found at 489.128(1)(a) : "For purposes of this section, if a state license is not required for the scope of work to be performed under the contract, the individual performing that work is not considered unlicensed". What could be more clear?
>
>
> Michael R. Gibbons
> Shareholder
> Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.
> 215 N. Eola Drive
> Orlando, FL 32801
> Phone: 407-418-6378
> Fax: 407-843-4444
> email: michael.gibbons at lowndes-law.com
> website: http://www.lowndes-law.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Dudley [mailto:dudley at mylicenselaw.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:23 AM
> To: Weintraub, Lee; Gibbons, Michael
> Cc: Sean A. Mickley; clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> Subject: RE: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?:
>
> Violation of public policy; the contract is illegal. All Section 489.128 added to the law was when it was amended after the Castro case to allow the OWNER to enforce the contract, thus changing the contract from void to voidable by the owner.
>
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weintraub, Lee [mailto:lweintraub at bplegal.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:21 AM
> To: Fred Dudley; Gibbons, Michael
> Cc: Sean A. Mickley; clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> Subject: RE: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?:
>
> Under what authority?
>
>
>
> Lee A. Weintraub
> Shareholder
> Board Certified in Construction Law
> Chair, Public Private Partnerships Practice Group Vice Chair, Construction Law and Litigation Practice Group
>
> Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
> 1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 | Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
> Tel: 954.985.4147 | Fax: 954.985.4176 | lweintraub at bplegal.com www.bplegal.com
>
>
> Visit www.floridaconstructionlawauthority.com today!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Dudley [mailto:dudley at mylicenselaw.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:19 AM
> To: Gibbons, Michael; Weintraub, Lee
> Cc: Sean A. Mickley; clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> Subject: RE: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?:
>
> BUT if a local license is required for such work, the failure be licensed may still be a defense to a lien.
>
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gibbons, Michael [mailto:Michael.Gibbons at lowndes-law.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:06 AM
> To: Weintraub, Lee
> Cc: Fred Dudley; Sean A. Mickley; clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?:
>
> This has always been my understanding and practice. 489.128 has no application unless scope of work falls under the defined scopes of "contractor" under definitions of Ch. 489. You won't find painting or flooring installation under definition of contractor at 489.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 7:58 AM, Weintraub, Lee <lweintraub at bplegal.com> wrote:
>>
>> 713.02, which deprives unlicensed contractors of liens, references 489.128, which only requires a license "required by this part." "This part" only requires state licenses. I don't think a local license requirement is relevant to the analysis of whether one can lien.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lee A. Weintraub
>> Shareholder
>> Board Certified in Construction Law
>> Chair, Public Private Partnerships Practice Group Vice Chair,
>> Construction Law and Litigation Practice Group
>>
>> Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
>> 1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 | Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
>> Tel: 954.985.4147 | Fax: 954.985.4176 | lweintraub at bplegal.com
>> http://us-api.mimecast.com/redirect/eNpVjTEKwzAMRe-iOTG0ZCiZGnqEkgMoig
>> gCOxayHQ-hd68pXbK-9x__BEWCEV7ze3pMA3RgvEncGyqpRxUXJDBhyo5iaJpKyjGwUVz5
>> 2pHmBnxl2bNhWZ6Let7Q_0OVFcZ7B8V8m9Va3dUfbOl3fPt8AQ3dMMU
>>
>>
>> Visit http://www.floridaconstructionlawauthority.com today!
>>
>>
>> The Becker & Poliakoff Client CARE Center is here to serve our valued clients. If you have a question, please call us toll-free at 1-844-CAREBP1 (1-844-227-3271) or by email at care at bplegal.com.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
>> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
>> Fred Dudley
>> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 7:52 AM
>> To: Gibbons, Michael; Sean A. Mickley
>> Cc: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
>> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?:
>>
>> I believe that either a state OR local license is required for such improvements, subject to the $1,000 "handyman" exemption found in s. 489.103(9); however, since the contract price exceeds this amount, that exemption is not applicable.
>>
>> I suggest that the local licensing requirements be considered.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
>> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
>> Gibbons, Michael
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:00 PM
>> To: Sean A. Mickley
>> Cc: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
>> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?:
>>
>> If the scope of work doesn't require a state license but the handyman is doing work improving the property (e.g. Painting, carpet or tile install) the work would be lienable regardless of non-state licensure under Ch. 489.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Sean A. Mickley <smickley at gouldcooksey.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does a handyman performing repairs and improvements in excess of $2,500 which do not require a license have lien rights on the property?
>>>
>>> I understand that florida law requires a contractor be licensed in order to lien property, but it does not require a license for material men or laborers to lien the property. Arguably, the handyman is a hybrid between the two. I would appreciate any insight on this issue.
>>>
>>> My initial conclusion is that the handyman does not have lien rights but I'd like to gather your collective thoughts.
>>>
>>> Sean A. Mickley, Esq.
>>> Gould Cooksey Fennell, P.A.
>>> 979 Beachland Blvd.
>>> Vero Beach, FL 32963
>>> 772-231-1100
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CLC-Discussion mailing list
>>> CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
>>> http://us-api.mimecast.com/redirect/eNpVjr0KwkAQhN9l6ySHYiFXGXwEsbtms
>>> 7nEhb0f7kcL8d29iAh2wzczzDwhIoGG8_UyHscDdJDsysE3VHOPkQfHzhLmMlBwzaaaS3
>>> A2UZjtf49iaUAeln1JWKfTFMWuKN9i5Bn0voOapMVupURtlFEOWRz6YclpC_6AUcK5sF-
>>> CUSTUz5zbdN6udXC36aP07vUG8gVBTg
>>
>> This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by
>> Mimecast. For more information please visit
>> http://us-api.mimecast.com/redirect/eNpdjrEOwjAMRP_Fc2kFYkCZqPgExNbFda
>> 1iKWmsxCED4t-JEAus7-7p7gmKBA4ut-t4Go_QQeJV4tZQyTtU6YMEJszWUwwtppItBk4U
>> F_71SK0BX1k2S1jm86yeV_RfUWUBd-igJN9qdzN10zANtdb_iQen_Lmwf70BCQI0UQ
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CLC-Discussion mailing list
>> CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
>> http://us-api.mimecast.com/redirect/eNpVjr0KwkAQhN9l6ySHYiFXGXwEsbtms7
>> nEhb0f7kcL8d29iAh2wzczzDwhIoGG8_UyHscDdJDsysE3VHOPkQfHzhLmMlBwzaaaS3A2
>> UZjtf49iaUAeln1JWKfTFMWuKN9i5Bn0voOapMVupURtlFEOWRz6YclpC_6AUcK5sF-CUS
>> TUz5zbdN6udXC36aP07vUG8gVBTg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CLC-Discussion mailing list
>> CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
>> http://us-api.mimecast.com/redirect/eNpVjr0KwkAQhN9l6ySHYiFXGXwEsbtms7
>> nEhb0f7kcL8d29iAh2wzczzDwhIoGG8_UyHscDdJDsysE3VHOPkQfHzhLmMlBwzaaaS3A2
>> UZjtf49iaUAeln1JWKfTFMWuKN9i5Bn0voOapMVupURtlFEOWRz6YclpC_6AUcK5sF-CUS
>> TUz5zbdN6udXC36aP07vUG8gVBTg
>
> This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
>
> This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> CLC-Discussion mailing list
> CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
> Confidentiality Notice: This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. It is legally privileged (including attachments) and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us so that we may take the appropriate action and avoid troubling you further. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
More information about the CLC-Discussion
mailing list