[CLC-Discussion] Construction Liens and Bonds - CS/SB 622 and HB 473

[RPPTL CLC-Discussion]

Wait a minute – this is confusing – These reasons sound like some double-pinky swear stuff and are not real reasons at all. None of these can’t already be addressed in the contract or as the law is currently interpreted.

“Sure.  For example, if you are the owner or lender, you do not have a contract with the subs, subs-subs, or suppliers]. But the Owner has a (Prime) contract with the GC and the GC incorporated all the provisions in the Prime into the subcontracts and so on, down the line.

(same for the general contractor with respect to the sub-subs and suppliers), Again – everybody incorporated the main contract into (or made it a requirement or) all the succeeding one – or should have. We all have language demanding this.

so you might want the lien waivers obtained from each of these potential lienors during the course of construction to warrant the following to the owner, lender, and/or general contractor:

Warrant that the work performed, or material supplied under the lien waiver is in accordance with the lienor’s contract. The contract requires this, at least the ones I see. Besides, Count 1 is usually “you did not perform in accordance with the contract” and the AIA pay app already says this for big jobs.

Warrant that the work performed, or material supplied under the lien waiver is in accordance with the Florida Building Code (and any required product approvals under the Code). How did it get passed by the AHJ, EOR, Arch, or Owner if it didn’t?

Warrant that the work under the lien waiver was performed in a workmanlike manner (for a sub or sub-sub). Really? And that promise is worth what in court? Also, in any Contract (and all standard pay apps).

Warrant that the materials supplied under the lien waiver were new and of good quality (for a supplier). Your contract said this, too.

Warrant that the lienor has not assigned its lien rights to another party. A release, by its nature, does this otherwise it is a fraudulent release because you had no ability to release anything because you had given it away.

Warrant that the lienor is not delinquent in paying any of its subs or suppliers on the project. Again, something that is inherent in a statutory release.

Sorry, these sound like excuses for the changes to releases – but remember – the bill allows anything to be added as long as its in the contract and that includes surety notices for non-payment. That, I fear, is the reason for these changes.

Jeff


[cid:image001.png at 01D70B7A.63DC3310]<https://www.npw-law.com/>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20210225/9adddc30/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 318448 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20210225/9adddc30/image001-0001.png>