[CLC-Discussion] Question - Requests for Copy of NOC

[RPPTL CLC-Discussion]

I agree with Leslie, it builds in another layer of protection.


*Edward J. Kinberg*
*Attorney* | *Stewart Law CS, LLC.*

p: 321-541-6845 a: 7341 Office Park Place, Suite 202, Melbourne, FL 32940
w: StewartLawCS.com <https://stewartlawcs.com/>


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Do not read this e-mail if you are not the intended
recipient. This message and all attachments are confidential and may be
protected by the attorney-client and other privileges. Any review, use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, disclosure or distribution by
persons other than the intended recipients is prohibited and may be
unlawful. You must delete this message and any copy of it (in any form)
without disclosing it if you believe this message has been sent to you in
error. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately
notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to
desirestewart at stewartlawcs.com or by telephone at (321)541-6845.



On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:22 PM RPPTL CLC-Discussion <
clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org> wrote:

> Hi Leslie- Hope you are well. Though Chapter 713 does not require that a
> copy be provided, often there are multiple NOC’s still active on the
> property, or if the project covers more than one parcel, etc. In the event
> the lienor gives notice according to info on the wrong NOC, it imperils the
> lien claim.  Asking the owner to confirm by identifying the NOC, can be a
> benefit to the lienholder, and if they guess wrong, and the Owner did not
> provide the requested copy could be argued as an estoppel against flaws in
> the NTO.
>
>
>
> Kimberly A. Ashby
>
> Foley & Lardner LLP
>
> 111 North Orange Avenue
>
> Orlando, Florida 32801
>
> D. 407-244-3265  c. 407-619-3492
>
>
>
> *From:* clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <
> clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> *On Behalf Of *RPPTL
> CLC-Discussion
> *Sent:* Friday, October 2, 2020 12:41 PM
> *To:* clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> *Subject:* [CLC-Discussion] Question - Requests for Copy of NOC
>
>
>
> *** EXTERNAL EMAIL MESSAGE ***
>
> Quick question:
>
>
>
> We have noticed recently that the typical “Notice to Owner/Notice to
> Contractor” forms our Owner clients are receiving from lower tiers now
> include a separate notice requesting that a copy of the Notice of
> Commencement for the project at issue be mailed to the sender.  Does anyone
> know of any statutory or other legal *requirement* that an Owner respond
> to these types of separate notices by printing out and sending a copy of
> the NOC?  Isn’t the whole purpose of *recording* the NOC that  you are
> putting the world on notice?
>
>
>
> *Leslie Miller Tomczak*
>
> Office Managing Partner
>
> Board Certified by the Florida Bar in Construction Law
>
> LEED AP
>
> Akerman LLP | 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1600 | Ft. Lauderdale, FL
> 33301
>
> D: 954 759 8926 | T: 954 463 2700 | F: 954 463 2224
>
> *leslie.tomczak at akerman.com <leslie.tomczak at akerman.com>*
>
>
>
>
> vCard
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.akerman.com_vcards_193.vcf&d=DwMGaQ&c=Rlm5WhGmPEr8srpDE4r86Q&r=FM9mUDzhKLYuOCzjcbalZA&m=oR8z-8ryYupiVu8qDrXOekjVm2YwB6W5m-9fXFEg6iQ&s=xxtuvGWLrr-n1AZDsbfVrupXIhGwNjhYeFdy-wUkQtI&e=>
> | Profile
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.akerman.com_en_people_leslie-2Dmiller-2Dtomczak.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=Rlm5WhGmPEr8srpDE4r86Q&r=FM9mUDzhKLYuOCzjcbalZA&m=oR8z-8ryYupiVu8qDrXOekjVm2YwB6W5m-9fXFEg6iQ&s=yxCxzbCohhjzhB06M0Z3I49bjIwcJd06oGKlvMsfec0&e=>
>
> [image: Akerman Logo]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.akerman.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=Rlm5WhGmPEr8srpDE4r86Q&r=FM9mUDzhKLYuOCzjcbalZA&m=oR8z-8ryYupiVu8qDrXOekjVm2YwB6W5m-9fXFEg6iQ&s=W1ErbyqWlCjNT30vUUUoUJO9Q__ulIc8uPHjJEw20cA&e=>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> The information contained in this message, including but not limited to
> any attachments, may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client or
> work-product privileges. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt
> by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this message in error,
> please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the
> message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and any
> attachments or copies. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on
> the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited, and
> may be unlawful. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the
> attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. Legal advice contained in
> the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Foley & Lardner LLP
> client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the
> subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party.
> Unless expressly stated otherwise, nothing contained in this message should
> be construed as a digital or electronic signature, nor is it intended to
> reflect an intention to make an agreement by electronic means.
> _______________________________________________
> CLC-Discussion mailing list
> CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20201002/c31cb96d/attachment-0001.html>