[RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

Tue Aug 9 08:40:38 PDT 2011

Me too.  Either I learn something, or I get to feel like I actually know something already! 

Sandra D. Kennedy, Esquire
Florida Bar Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Ferencik Libanoff Brandt Bustamante and Williams, P.A.
150 South Pine Island Road, Suite 400
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324
Tel (954) 474-8080
Fax (954) 474-7343
Miami (305) 949-8003
skennedy at flbbwlaw.com

________________________________

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of leslie.tomczak at akerman.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:24 AM
To: constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

I personally like the dialogue on such issues (as a learning tool).  

Leslie Miller Tomczak

Shareholder, LEED AP

Akerman Senterfitt | 350 East Las Olas Boulevard | Suite 1600 | Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301  

Dir: 954.759.8926 | Main: 954.463.2700 | Fax: 954.463.2224

leslie.tomczak at akerman.com 

V Card <http://www.akerman.com/bios/vcard.asp?id=673>  | Bio <http://www.akerman.com/bios/bio.asp?id=673>  | akerman.com <http://www.akerman.com673>  

 <http://www.akerman.com/akermanlogo4.gif> 

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. 

CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.

________________________________

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Larry Leiby
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:10 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

There have been complaints in the past about the time to review such communication when members feel that they are not interested in the topic.   

I also see the other educational point of view and defer to our chair, Herr Tritt, to establish policy.  

My prior understanding was that there was concern expressed by some members about being bombarded on a topic. 

There is also the issue that some members may respond privately if they are concerned about others seeing the response (for various reasons), which is an option at any time if the e-mail address is given (otherwise to be looked up).

Perhaps the initial question (which obviously goes to the entire list) and any first responses (to go to the list), with further discussion on the issue being either: 

1) public to all on the list, using discretion to not oversaturate.  

2) limited to the people communicating person to person.  

Members can always choose the person to person communication.

I thought that we had addressed this issue in the past but I don't find any record of it.

Herr Tritt?  Executive decision or meeting agenda item?

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 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

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

ebelsky at jlblaw.com <mailto: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/20110809/0ab376ee/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3611 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20110809/0ab376ee/image001.jpg>