[RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold onpublic land

Mon Feb 6 11:43:52 PST 2012

Why not enforce your bond remedy?

Note the first sentence of 255.05(1)(a); the recent amendments creating
existing language requires private party to obtain bond(s) for work that
private party contracts for as improvement to public property or a Public
Work .  To understand better the meaning of the amendment, do research on
use of "public work"; that wording is not limited to " public property" or
there would be no disjunctive "or". A very early case used "public work"  as
private property of a railroad that would serve the public; that case did
not deal with lien or bond, but it illustrates how general "public work"
means in current version of statute.   A more interesting issue is defining
the remedy for non-compliance against the public body or the private party
that failed to obtain bonds. In some past cases the commissioners or council
members were liable to person or entity that by law had right to rely upon
existence of the required bonds. Who was advising the public body; the
private party. Does the license or lease have an indemnity clause in favor
of public entity?  Have fun.

         JG Thresher

813-229-7744

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
fred.dudley at hklaw.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:25 PM
To: constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land

Can you send a copy of the Order on your motion for SJ?

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
 <mailto:fred.dudley at hklaw.com> fred.dudley at hklaw.com |
<http://www.hklaw.com/> www.hklaw.com 

________________________________________________
 <http://www.hklaw.com/vcard.aspx?user=frdudley> Add to address book |
<http://www.hklaw.com/id77/biosfrdudley> View professional biography 

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Bryan L.
Capps
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:34 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land

Steve Pickert and I had such a case many years ago, wherein the City of
Coral Springs entered into a renewable "Concession Agreement" (i.e., a
lease) for a private party to build an ice-skating rink on City property.
Under the Concession Agreement, the concessionaire/lessee actually owned the
improvements subject to the City's reversionary interest at the conclusion
of the lease.  The concessionaire/lessee didn't pay the contractor and, in
fact, sold its interest during construction.  The contractor, our client,
recorded a lien against the property, and both the concessionaire/lessee and
the purchaser said the property was not lienable.  We moved for and were
granted summary judgment in our favor on that issue.  Attached is the
motion/brief, which is a matter of public record and may be helpful.
Presumably much of the law has changed/evolved over the past 14 or so years.

Bryan Capps

  _____  

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org on behalf of Larry Leiby
Sent: Thu 2/2/2012 3:44 PM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land

The answer is in the definitions in 713.01 (and if you are referring to 8:3
of my book, it is set out there).  The statutory reason that you can't lien
publicly owned property is because a governmental owner is not within the
definition of owner in 713.01.  The definition of real property also
excludes governmentally owned property.  This is intended to keep
governmentally owned property out of the lien law because a government must
usually go through an election to subject public owned property to liens,
e.g., financing bond issues.  

An owner is also defined as one having an interest in the property and who
enters into a contract for the improvement of the real property.  Thus there
is no reason that you cannot have a lien on a private leasehold interest
that sits on public property.  You want to be careful when you prepare the
lien to only seek it against the leasehold.  Also a lien on a leasehold is
typically only as valuable as the tenant is collectable.  

Go get em.

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. S. Ct. 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 Rafael
Perez
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:56 PM
To: constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-construction law] 713.10 lien for private leasehold on
public land

Does anyone have any authority for a construction lien on a leasehold where
the lessee is a private party but the lessor is a municipality (i.e. on
public land)?  The lessee contracted for the improvements which were
required by the lease agreement.  The only authority I have found is Section
8.3 of the Fla. Prac. Construction Law Manual which states in the first
paragraph, in part: "However, there may be private leasehold interests on
governmental property that are lienable."   I have found no other authority.

Rafael A. Perez

Board Certified Construction Attorney

McArdle and Perez, P.A.

806 S. Douglas Road, Suite 625

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

305-442-2214

Fax 305-442-2291

rperez at mcper.com

  _____  

****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/20120206/e0f5f0f9/attachment.html>