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

Tue Feb 7 09:24:35 PST 2012

Joseph:  Your meaning is not at all clear.  How would a statutory
chapter 255.05 payment bond even be required for an improvement
contracted and paid for by a private entity leasing public land?  The
purpose of 255.05, as I had understood it, was to secure payment for
subcontractors supplying labor, services and materials to governmental
entities, not private parties.

Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Shareholder
GrayRobinson, P.A.
50 North Laura Street, Suite 1100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Main: 904-598-9929 | Fax: 904-598-9109
Email: Reese.Henderson at gray-robinson.com

This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with 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, and are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials.
Please be advised that this law firm may be acting as a debt collector and is attempting to collect a debt and any information provided will be used for that purpose.
________________________________

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Joseph G. Thresher
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:10 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'; 'Danay Diaz'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw]713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land

Not if the amendment by 2007-221 laws of Florida are interpreted
consistent with purpose of 255.05.

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Peyton White Lumpkin
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:35 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land

A 255 bond would not apply to a ground lease of public  vacant property
being developed by a private developer, with title to the improvements
in the developer until the end of the lease when they revert back to the
public entity, correct?

Peyton White Lumpkin, Esq., LEED AP

The Lumpkin Law Firm P.A.

2655 Le Jeune Road

Fifth Floor

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Tel: (305) 667-1808

Fax: (305) 444-5366

peytonwhitelumpkin at bellsouth.net

thelumpkinlawfirm.com

Confidentiality Notice:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain
confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message, including all attachments.

________________________________

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
fred.dudley at hklaw.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:04 PM
To: constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land

There's also an old case out of north Florida holding county
commissioners PERSONALLY liable for failing to require a 255 bond!

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/>

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

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
Joseph G. Thresher
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:44 PM
To: 'RPPTL constructionlaw'
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 713.10 lien for private leasehold
onpublic land

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

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

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/20120207/a4de2fbe/attachment.html>