<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Calibri Light";
panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Book Antiqua";
panose-1:2 4 6 2 5 3 5 3 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#467886;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Well put, Bruce, but far too few words to convey that the materialman LOSES without proof of incorporation of the materials into the real property. However, if the materials are unique (i.e., capable of being identified after the incorporation)
, that can serve as proof of incorporation even in the absence of the rebuttable presumption that arises from proof of delivery to the jobsite. Of course, I speak only hypothetically….since I’ve never heard of a material that meets that description! Even manhole
covers embossed with the name of the manufacturer…..???<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none">Fred R. Dudley, Esq. BCS<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none">Board Certified Specialist (Construction Law)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none">Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Lawyer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none">Fellow: American College of Trust and Estate Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none">Dudley, Healy & Heath, PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none">Attorneys and Counselors at Law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none">2940 Kerry Forrest Parkway, Suite 201,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none">TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32309<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none">Direct: 850-692-6368<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none">Cell:850-294-3471<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">
<a href="mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.o">clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.o</a> (g <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bruce Partington<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 31, 2024 2:14 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Justin Zinzow <jzinzow@zinzowlaw.com>; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CLC-Discussion] is it a materialman?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#1F497D">Maybe – your challenge will be proving incorporation. You’ll have to prove that. If your buyer is cooperative, then you may be able to get there, but if the only evidence is “that’s
where they told me the materials were going” you’re confronted with a tough hurdle.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">With regard to the materials which Coastal delivered to the work site, we conclude that there was sufficient
evidence to <span style="border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;background:white">
*706</span> support an award. Coastal's sales tickets, signed in each instance by a Moore employee, indicated that these five orders were placed for delivery by Coastal to the Flamingo job site. Coastal's witness testified that the routine business practice
in the execution of such an order was to deliver it to the address indicated. “Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization
on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice.” § 90.406, Fla.Stat. (1987);
</span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;mso-ligatures:none">see Brown v. Giffen Indus.,</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">
281 So.2d 897, 900 (Fla.1973). FECP made no showing to the contrary, but simply contended that Coastal's proof was insufficient. An award was proper, therefore, for the five orders in the amount of $6,024.20.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">We reach a different conclusion with respect to the remainder of the sales. Coastal's records indicated
that the remaining twenty-one orders were for the Flamingo project, but Moore employees picked up the materials in each instance. No witness testified about Moore's routine practice with respect to pick-up orders for the Flamingo project.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">The burden is on the materialman to establish that the materials were actually delivered to the construction
site in order to obtain the benefit of the statutory presumption. </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;mso-ligatures:none">Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. Hughes Supply,
Inc.,</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none"> 371 So.2d 559, 564–65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979);
</span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;mso-ligatures:none">American Ins. Co. v. Coley Elec. Supply Co.,</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">
354 So.2d 390, 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;mso-ligatures:none">Beautyware Plumbing Supply Co. v. Columbiad Apartments, Inc.,</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">
215 So.2d 42, 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;mso-ligatures:none">see Clutter Construction Corp. v. State ex rel. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">
139 So.2d 426, 428 (Fla.1962). We have sympathy for Coastal's argument that it can be difficult to locate witnesses and adduce proof from a defunct subcontractor. Nonetheless, the decisional law construing the statute is unanimous in placing the burden on
the lien claimant, and the burden is ameliorated by the Evidence Code provision allowing evidence of routine practice in lieu of proof of every individual sale.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">Coastal also argues that over-the-counter sales constitute delivery “by a lienor to a place designated
by the person with whom the materialman contracted,” § 713.09, Fla.Stat. (1987), so as to bring the twenty-one sales within the separate site provision of the statute. We disagree. First, although the Flamingo project occupied two parcels, they were contiguous,
not separate. Second, an over-the-counter sale is not, in our view, delivery to a “place designated” within the meaning of the statute. We conclude, therefore, that the appeal is well taken with respect to the twenty-one sales in the amount of $15,808.99.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#212121;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;mso-ligatures:none">Florida E. Coast Properties, Inc. v. Coastal Const. Products, Inc.</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">,
553 So. 2d 705, 705–06 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Bruce Partington | Shareholder<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="mailto:bpartington@clarkpartington.com"><span style="color:#00ADEE">bpartington@clarkpartington.com</span></a><span style="color:#00ADEE"> </span>| <a href="tel:(850)%20432-1399"><span style="color:#00ADEE">(850)
432-1399</span></a><span style="color:#00ADEE"> </span></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">CLARK PARTINGTON<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Office: (850) 434-9200 | Fax: (850) 432-7340<br>
125 East Intendencia Street, 4th Floor <br>
Pensacola, Florida 32502<br>
</span><a href="https://clarkpartington.com/"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#02B2EE;background:white">clarkpartington.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><img border="0" width="288" height="64" style="width:3.0in;height:.6666in" id="_x0030_.1k99tqqk6qk" src="cid:image002.png@01DAE368.38BC4F20" alt="ClarkPartington-logo-RGB_Screen-02-1.png"><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">
<a href="mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org">clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org</a> <<a href="mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org">clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Justin Zinzow<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 31, 2024 11:50 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org">clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CLC-Discussion] is it a materialman?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Good afternoon counsel. I am interested in the take of our construction bar on the following situation.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A company supplies materials to contractors on account. This material supply company allows the contractor to pick up its-own materials, rather than the material supply company itself delivering the materials to the jobsite. At the time
of sale of the materials by the material supply company, the jobsite is known. Is the material supply company a materialman?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 713.01(21) defines a materialman as: “any person who furnishes materials under contract to the owner, contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor on the site of the improvement or for direct delivery to the site of the improvement
or, for specially fabricated materials, off the site of the improvement for the particular improvement, and who performs no labor in the installation thereof.”
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thie material supply company has furnished materials to the contractor, but is it “on the site of the improvement” when the materials were not manufactured on the site? Looking at the alternative portion of the definition, what does “direct
delivery” mean? Normal usage of the term direct suggests that the material supply company has to deliver them directly to the jobsite. I am aware of only one published case coming even close to this issue: Associated Distributors v. Mix, 440 So.2d 516 (Fla.
4<sup>th</sup> DCA 1983). However, the fact pattern there was that the material supply company sold bulk materials to the contractor that could be used at contractor’s discretion, or were intended to be used, on multiple different jobsites. In my scenario,
the materials were purchased by the contractor for a specific jobsite. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I welcome your thoughts. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="259" valign="top" style="width:2.7in;border-top:solid gray 1.5pt;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid gray 1.5pt;border-right:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">Justin R. Zinzow<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">Admitted to Practice Florida & Texas<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">AV Preeminent® Rated Attorney<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">Fla. Board Certified in Construction Law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">P: (727) 787-3121<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">F: (727) 375-5593<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">8750 Hawbuck Street<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">Trinity, Florida 34655<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none"><a href="https://link.edgepilot.com/s/f8fed95a/QBTaIXlFZUWnKTn8tUxdhw?u=http://www.zinzowlaw.com/">https://link.edgepilot.com/s/f8fed95a/QBTaIXlFZUWnKTn8tUxdhw?u=http://www.zinzowlaw.com/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td width="331" valign="top" style="width:3.45in;border-top:solid gray 1.5pt;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid gray 1.5pt;border-right:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="mso-ligatures:none"><img border="0" width="192" height="160" style="width:2.0in;height:1.6666in" id="Picture_x0020_3" src="cid:image003.jpg@01DAE368.38BC4F20"></span><span style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">Construction | Real Estate | Equine | Business</span><span style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>