[RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

Mon Aug 8 14:41:36 PDT 2011

Hello Ms. Brindle:

Well, it appears, (and of course I was not at the hearing so, again, I use the term appears), that the Judge treated the "Amended" claim of lien as a new lien (despite the "amendment" language contained in the new lien) due to the work being provided under the contract up to and through the new final furnishing date.  She then considered the action itself timely as it went to the "new" lien and new final furnishing date.  Otherwise, you are correct in that the statute requires any amendment to be within the original statutory time frame, i.e., 90 days from final furnishing.  It is confusing given the language utilized in the "Amended Claim of Lien".  However, I believe my analysis is accurate given the new final furnishing date which would obviate the confines of the original lien and that no other legally plausible explanation is available.  What was the your position regarding the new final furnishing date...in other words, did your client agree that work had been provided by the lienor pursuant to the direct contract up to and including the new lien date?  If so, I think that further provides support for the position taken by the court.  However, I would be interested to hear the responses from anyone else.

________________________________

	From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Krista Brindle
	Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:14 PM
	To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
	Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

	Hi all,

	I got a bad ruling this afternoon and I was wondering if any of you know of some awesome caselaw that is on point off the top of your head...here's the facts:

	Plaintiff filed Claim of Lien on May 28, 2009, alleging the last work was done on March 4, 2009.

	Plaintiff filed an Amended Claim of Lien on April 7, 2010, alleging the last work was done on March 2, 2010, but specifically stating that it was being filed to amend the claim of lien from '09.

	Plaintiff filed suit to foreclose the Amended Claim of Lien on March 30, 2011.

	We filed a Motion to Dismiss for the Defendant, stating that the Amended Claim of Lien was way too late, pursuant to §713.08(4)(b) and the case of Hayutin v. Cochran Const. Co., Inc.  

	The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss stating that since the Plaintiff was amending the last date of work performed, and since the amended claim of lien was filed within 90 days of that new date, then it was timely.  

	This seems to completely gut the statute and goes against the whole "strictly construed creature of statute" claim of lien law that I had learned.  Am I crazy and the Judge is right or is she off base and I should be filing a Motion for Rehearing as soon as I can?

	Thanks in advance for all your help, all you wonderful brilliant people!

	Krista L. Brindle, Esq.

	Andrew S. Epstein, P.A.

	2120 McGregor Boulevard

	Fort Myers, Florida 33901

	Telephone: (239) 791-LAWS (5297)

	Facsimile: (239) 791-0100

	Confidentiality: This e-mail communication is intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential information.  If you are not the addressee or an authorized representative, you are advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, or other dissemination or use of this communication or any information contained herein is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately advise the sender either by reply e-mail or call at (239) 791-5297; delete this communication and destroy all physical copies. 

	All e-mail communications are electronically filtered for "spam" and "viruses." Filtering may result in communications being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) or delayed in reaching us.  Therefore, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your e-mail or that we will receive it in a timely manner.  Accordingly, important or time-sensitive communications should be sent to us by means other than e-mail.

________________________________

William H. Beaver II, Esquire

GrayRobinson, P.A.
301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400
P.O. Box 3068 (32802-3068)
Orlando, Florida 32801
Main: 407-843-8880 | Fax: 407-244-5690
Email: William.Beaver at gray-robinson.com

This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender.

Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20110808/aa1cd4dc/attachment.html>