[RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

Tue Aug 9 07:38:42 PDT 2011

Ditto.

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Eric
Belsky
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:32 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

Personally, I enjoy reading these back-and-forth dialogues and really
appreciate being included on the mailing list!  The discussion is always
lively and enlightening (even if purely academic) and on almost all
occasions these exchanges tend to be pertinent to either something I’m
working on, something I’ve got on the back-burner, or something likely to
present itself in the future (which is why I save these discussions in my
“Legal Research” folder for future reference). J  Of course, if it’s
something I genuinely have no interest in whatsoever, simply hitting the
Delete button is no great hardship...  Thanks!

Leiter || Belsky

Description: Scales_Logo.jpg

Eric G. Belsky, Esq.

Leiter & Belsky, P.A.

Blackstone Building, Third Floor

707 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

954.462.3116  Telephone

954.761.8990  Facsimile

 <mailto:ebelsky at jlblaw.com> ebelsky at jlblaw.com

  _____  

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Tom
McKeel
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:08 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

For what it is worth, I enjoy and benefit from the questions and answers.
The reading is like a continuing CLE.

  _____  

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry
Leiby
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:34 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Timeliness of Amended Claim of Lien

Krista,

I don’t think that you are crazy, but I think that the trial court was
correct.  In Hayutin the amended claim of lien was recorded more than 90
days after the date of last work recited in the amended claim of lien.

You still may be able to argue that you are prejudiced by the amendment, if
you can prove any prejudice.  The lienor must still prove that it worked up
to the date alleged in the amended claim of lien, which work was not
warranty work.

Suggestion:  When you ask a question like this you should include your
personal e-mail address so that responses need not go to all members of the
committee.

Larry R. Leiby, Esq.

Malka & Kravitz, P.A.

1300 Sawgrass Corp. Pkwy., Suite 100

Ft. Lauderdale, FL  33323

Phone:  954-514-0984

Fax:      954-514-0985

e-mail:  leiby at mkpalaw.com

Board Certified in Construction Law

Certified Circuit Court Civil Mediator

Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators

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.

  _____  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20110809/bdf13675/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3611 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20110809/bdf13675/image001.jpg>