[RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications
PSMLAWFIRM at aol.com
PSMLAWFIRM at aol.com
Tue Aug 9 10:11:38 PDT 2011
I understand the concern. When it comes to requests for referrals and
experts, I think those responses should be directed back to the recipient
only. However, when a member asks a legal questions, I think it is beneficial
to all that we exchange the ideas/responses with everyone. (My Italian
grandmother was the only one I have known that knew everything, and she has
long since passed.). The questions are generally not clear cut and
frequently concern issues many of us face.
As long as the subject line clearly lists the topic, it is very quick and
easy to hit delete and free up the mailbox.
Paul
Paul S. Martin, Esq.
Law Offices of
Paul S. Martin & Associates, P.A.
2134 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, FL 33020
USA
Phone 954.923.4604
Telefax 954.923.6545
___________________________
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is directed. The information contained in this E-mail message is
privileged, confidential, and may be protected from disclosure; please be
aware that any other use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of
this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you
think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please
immediately reply to the sender.
In a message dated 8/9/2011 11:10:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Leiby at mkpalaw.com writes:
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)
_[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org]_
(mailto:[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_ (mailto: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:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org]_
(mailto:[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.
____________________________________
_______________________________________________
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20110809/d26bf48a/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/d26bf48a/image001.jpg>
More information about the constructionlaw
mailing list