[CLC-Discussion] Construction litigator in the Knoxville or Seiverville. TN area

Mon Jun 8 11:02:24 PDT 2015

Can anyone recommend a construction litigator in this area?

Thank you.

Sherry Lambson-Eisele, Esq., Partner
SOUTH MILHAUSEN, P.A.
Gateway Center
1000 Legion Place, Ste. 1200
Orlando, Florida 32801
Phone: (407) 539-1638/Mobile (407)405-8801
Fax: (407) 539- 2679
Website: www.southmilhausen.com<http://www.southmilhausen.com/>
Email: sleisele at southmilhausen.com<mailto:sleisele at southmilhausen.com>

[South Milhausen, P.A.]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This electronic message is from a law firm and it may contain confidential or privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender immediately to advise of the error and then delete this transmission and any attachments.
South Milhausen, P.A. is a debt collector and any information obtained will be used to effect the collection of the debt in accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Fred Dudley
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 1:40 PM
To: Jeff Price; 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC Discussion'
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA

Please remember that the SOR is simply and "outside" date by which, for latent construction defects, the 4-year statute of limitation  is deemed to have started to run when the owner knew or should have known about the defect. So, delayed payment should not have a much impact; it there is litigation, owner will have certainly called in an engineer to determine any latent defects, and the 4-year SOL starts to run at that time.

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> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Price
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:59 AM
To: 'Roberts, Hardy L.'; 'CLC Discussion'
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] New Statute of Repose Decision in 5th DCA

Cypress v. Bergeron, 5D13-4102 (May 8, 2015).
The 5th DCA has created an unnecessary rule for when a construction contract is complete. They have created what can only be called a bright-line rule. The contract between an Owner and a Contractor is complete upon payment to the Contractor.
A bright line rule should work all the time and be equitable to both parties if, as the court said, the statute language is unambiguous.
"[A] bright-line test will ordinarily require only a cursory review of the record by a trial court." [A] bright-line rule [is] appealing in that it establishes a rule that is easy to apply and relieves the trial court and litigants of the burden of determining and guessing as to whether an activity is merely passive or active." Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786, 791-92 (Fla. 2011).

By holding that the date of final payment to the contractor signifies the contract completion the Court add ambiguity to the mix. Further, this ruling ignores three things in my mind:

1)       Reality - the facts on the ground. For example: In this case, had the Owner and/or the A/E accepted the buildings and were they being used and occupied by the Owner? At the time of submitting the final pay application did anyone disagree that the work was done?

a.      Was the 3 day lag for payment simply a "passive" ministerial act whose timing was dependent upon the postal service?

b.      The pay app was delivered on Wednesday and "final payment" was made on Friday. So, was the check written on Friday? Was it "deposited" or was it "settled" on Friday at the bank? Was it "mailed" on Friday? Was it "signed" on Friday? Or was it handed to the contractor on Friday?
If the Court is creating a bright-line rule about when a construction contract is complete ("Completion of the contract means completion of performance by both sides of the contract") then we need more direction than "payment was made."
The thing is, the trial court can hold an evidentiary hearing. The DCA should have punted and said that the date of completion of the contract is fact dependent.

2)      The Fudge Factor - Owners now get to determine the contract completion date (and this is just as unfair as allowing the GC to determine it by sending the final pay app early). Would the Court have ruled differently if the Owner took 90 days to pay? If they would have ruled differently, then this is a bad bright-line rule.

3)      Slow Pay Incentive - Any reason for an Owner to pay quickly  given this ruling? Will this ruling delay final payments in some regards?

Does the Court's ruling work if, say, the Owner and GC are at odds at the end of the contract?
Let's try an everyday construction law example:

GC says they are done and sends final pay app and everything else required by statute and the contract.
Owner says GC is not done and withholds payment claiming some sticking point (how many times does that happen?).
For the next six months both sides argue about something. (I had one where it was door numbers in the wrong typeface).
After six months they all realize the lawyers are costing too much money and they just drop the matter.
No written settlement, no promises, no extra performance by either side; they just decide to stop fighting.
The Owner sends the final payment. Is the contract complete now? Or was it complete six months earlier?

Does the 5th DCA's bright-line rule accomplish justice if, later on in a repose fight, the Owner gets to claim an extra 6 months?

Jeffrey L. Price, Esq.
Florida Bar Board Certified - Construction Law
Florida Civil-law Notary
Niesen|Price|Worthy|Campo, PA
5216 SW 91st Drive  Gainesville, FL 32608
Ph (352) 373-9031   Fax (352) 373-9099
http://npw-law.com<http://npw-law.com/>

[npw-logo-circle-orange-medium][ConstructionLaw small logo]    [http://www.boyd-jenerette.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/nacln12.gif]                          This communication is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify me by telephone, delete this communication, and destroy any copies of it.  Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Roberts, Hardy L.
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 2:14 PM
To: CLC Discussion (clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>)
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] CLC -- New Statute of Repose Decision

The Fifth District held today (in the attached opinion that is not yet final) that the statute of repose commenced to run when a construction contract was completed rather than when construction was completed. The parties argued over whether the statute of repose began to run from the date the contractor made its final application for payment or whether the period ran from the date the final payment was made. The Fifth DCA held that the contract at issue was complete when the final payment was made and that the statute began to run on that later date.

[Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.]
Hardy L. Roberts
Attorney at Law
Board Certified in Construction Law by the Florida Bar

4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000
Tampa, Florida  33607-5780
Direct:  813.229.4105 | Fax:  813.229.4133

HRoberts at cfjblaw.com<mailto:HRoberts at cfjblaw.com> | www.CFJBLaw.com<http://www.cfjblaw.com/>
bio<http://www.cfjblaw.com/hroberts/> | vcard<http://www.cfjblaw.com/FCWSite/Features/_Attorneys/vCard.aspx?attorney=176>  | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=249761797&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile>

Confidential: This e-mail contains a communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or constitutes work product.  If you do not expect such a communication please delete this message without reading it or any attachment and then notify the sender of this inadvertent delivery.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20150608/3181579d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15854 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20150608/3181579d/image005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16858 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20150608/3181579d/image006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1861 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20150608/3181579d/image007.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3020 bytes
Desc: image008.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20150608/3181579d/image008.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 26949 bytes
Desc: image009.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20150608/3181579d/image009.jpg>