[RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications
Steve Thompson
sthompson at thompsonbrookslaw.com
Tue Aug 9 08:51:35 PDT 2011
I too find the dialogues useful and informative at times. When I don't have
a burning interest in the subject matter discussed I simply save them to a
research folder or delete them. For what it is worth, I feel that the
benefits of receiving the information outweigh the hassle of deleting those
e-mails which do not hold my interest.
Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824
THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A CONFIDENTIAL
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR;
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.
_____
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
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/eaa8e745/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/eaa8e745/image001.jpg>
More information about the constructionlaw
mailing list