[RPPTL-constructionlaw] construction lien - title question

[Larry Leiby]

Off the top of my head I would say yes if you can show that the son was aware of the improvement and did not object.  The argument is that the parents were acting as agents for the son.  If you can't show that the son knew then be sure to add counts under 713.11 and a claim for an equitable lien.  The language on service of documents is helpful. 713.18(4) but it only addresses service.  You have to be concerned with the first sentence of 713.10(1).

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
Fla. Supreme Court Certified Circuit Court Civil Mediator

Member, Leiby Alexander Brandt ADR Group, LLC
Member, JAMS Global Engineering and Construction Panel
Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators

[cid:image001.jpg at 01CD7676.5B962F00]

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Tim Atkinson
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 6:54 PM
To: constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] construction lien - title question

Hi all,

Crazy question of the day (for me at least):

May a contractor file a lien against property titled as below where the residential improvement contract (over $2,500) was only between Husband and Wife and contractor (not Son):

Wife, as 7.5 percent tenant in common with Husband, as 42.5 percent tenant in common with Son, as 50 percent owner with Husband and Son holding their individual interests with right of survivorship only between themselves.

Any input or help would be most appreciated!

Best regards,

Tim

Timothy P. Atkinson*
Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A.
PO Box 1110, Tallahassee, FL 32302
850.521.0700-w | 850.521.0720-f | 850.544.5304-m

* Board Certified State and Federal
   Government and Administrative Practice

[cid:image002.jpg at 01CD7676.5B962F00]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20120809/505b0f11/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3332 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20120809/505b0f11/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3956 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20120809/505b0f11/image002.jpg>