[RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications
Krista Brindle
krista at andrewepstein.com
Tue Aug 9 08:55:03 PDT 2011
I agree, but then, I started this whole debate with my question yesterday,
so I might be somewhat biased. I belong to a couple of other very active
listservs on other areas of law and I have learned so much from the
discussions between the members.
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.
_____
From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Schulman,Beth-Ann
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:48 AM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications
It is not that difficult to hit the delete button and I think the benefits
of the dialogue outweigh the burden of deleting unwanted emails.
Just my two cents.
____________________________________________________
Beth-Ann Schulman
Attorney at Law
Law Offices of Jack D. Evans
2420 Lakemont Avenue, Suite 125
Orlando, Florida 32814
Telephone: 407-388-2679
Facsimile: 855-203-0311
Cell Phone: 407-267-1374
<mailto:bschulma at travelers.com> bschulma at travelers.com
Sr. Legal Assistant: Rameela Chandraseka
Telephone: 407-388-2952
Email: <mailto:rrchandr at travelers.com> rrchandr at travelers.com
We strive to be a paperless office. I encourage you to send all
correspondence, pleadings, discovery, production, and every other
transmittable item via email or fax instead of US Mail when at all possible.
When this form of transmittal occurs, it is not necessary to send a separate
copy via US mail. This request applies to all attorneys and staff in the
Orlando Staff Counsel Office. Thank you for your cooperation
_____
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). :-) 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
<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]
<mailto:%5bmailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org%5d> 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]
<mailto:%5bmailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org%5d> 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.
_____
============================================================================
==
This communication, including attachments, is confidential, may be subject
to legal privileges, and is intended for the sole use of the addressee. Any
use, duplication, disclosure or dissemination of this communication, other
than by the addressee, is prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or
destroy this communication and all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20110809/6bfa8b44/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/20110809/6bfa8b44/image001.jpg>
More information about the constructionlaw
mailing list