[RPPTL-constructionlaw] listserve communications

Wed Aug 10 06:08:38 PDT 2011

I don't think that this is a problem, but it is important that the email header subject line be accurate so readers can skip messages that don't interest them. For example, change the subject line if one is responding but changing the topic.

Howard Allen Cohen
Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
hac at atkinson-diner.com<mailto:hac at atkinson-diner.com>
Atkinson, Diner, Stone, Mankuta & Ploucha, P.A.
One Financial Plaza, Suite 1400
100 SE Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Phone 954-925-5501 ext. 1318
Direct Fax 954-337-3234
www.atkinson-diner.com<http://www.atkinson-diner.com/>

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (a) avoiding tax-related penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney/client privileged and confidential. It 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 communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail or by telephone collect at 954-925-5501 and delete the original message. Thank you.

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<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] 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
[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
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.
________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20110810/3b2046d5/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/20110810/3b2046d5/image001.jpg>