[RPPTL-constructionlaw] 489.128 Fla. Stat. & failure to havea certificate of authority

Mon Nov 14 11:30:50 PST 2011

Do you mean a qualifying agent for the company or a certificate of authority for the business? If it is the certificate of authority (also known as a qualifying business number), the saving language was eliminated from the statute because the requirement for a certificate of authority was eliminated at that time and all references to a certificate of authority were deleted.

This e-mail was sent by an attorney, is highly confidential, and may be privileged as a matter of law. This message is intended only for the use of persons named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this message, including its dissemination, distribution, copying, or printing, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please reply and inform me of that mistake. In addition, permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments and please notify me by telephone (if long distance, call collect) to let me know. Thank you

Stephen D. Marlowe                                                       
Marlowe McNabb P.A.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law     
1560 West Cleveland Street
Tampa, FL 33606-1807
Telephone: (813) 251-3013
Facsimile: (813) 251-5945
Steve at MarloweMcNabb.com
www.MarloweMcNabb.com
Board Certified in Construction Law

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley at hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 1:50 PM
To: constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 489.128 Fla. Stat. & failure to havea certificate of authority

The federal cases (like Lake Eola, Baker County, etc) are at odds with the state cases (in which the contracting entity MUST have an approved QA). 

Frederick Dudley | Holland & Knight 
Board Certified Construction Lawyer 
315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 | Tallahassee FL 32301 

Phone 850.425.5668 | Fax 850.224.8832 | Cell 850.294.3471 

fred.dudley at hklaw.com <mailto:fred.dudley at hklaw.com> | www.hklaw.com <http://www.hklaw.com/> 
-------------------------- 
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 

From: Justin Zinzow [mailto:JZinzow at zinzowlaw.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 01:01 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org> 
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 489.128 Fla. Stat. & failure to have a certificate of authority 

Committee members:  Please pardon the interruption.  I have the following question:  If a contractor business organization did not have a certificate of authority at the time of contract, does the 489.128 penalty apply?

I am aware of the 2006 Lake Eola Builders decision saying the penalty does not apply, but one of the primary bases of that holding was eliminated from the statute in 2009 (deletion of the savings clause indicating that failure to hold a certificate of authority did not deem the contractor unlicensed if a licensed individual applied for such a certificate).

Does anyone have any knowledge as to why the legislature made this amendment in 2009?

 Justin R. Zinzow | Zinzow Law
AV Rated Board Certified 
Construction Specialist

(727) 787-3121
Website <http://www.zinzowlaw.com/>  | Bio <http://www.zinzowlaw.com/attorney-profiles/Justin-Zinzow/> 

35111 U.S. Highway 19 N. ±  Suite 302 ± Palm Harbor, FL 34684 ± Fax (727) 787-3231

NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 727-787-3121 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender.  Disclaimer under Circular 230: Any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including any attachments, are not formal tax opinions by this firm, cannot be relied upon or used by any person to avoid tax penalties, are not intended to be advice to avoid tax laws or penalties, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.

________________________________

****IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.****
________________________________

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20111114/50f61f72/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4287 bytes
Desc: image010.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20111114/50f61f72/image010.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2981 bytes
Desc: image011.gif
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20111114/50f61f72/image011.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2300 bytes
Desc: image012.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20111114/50f61f72/image012.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2857 bytes
Desc: image013.gif
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20111114/50f61f72/image013.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image014.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2857 bytes
Desc: image014.gif
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20111114/50f61f72/image014.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5473 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20111114/50f61f72/image002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4048 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20111114/50f61f72/image003.jpg>