[RPPTL-constructionlaw] Section 255.05 Question

Tue Jan 10 07:10:22 PST 2012

Has anyone run into the issue under §255.05  as to whether the public entity can “piecemeal” a single contract into separate project locations in order to bypass the bonding requirement? 

If you think you may have some insight, please give me your contact information and I will follow up with you directly. 

Thank you very much. 

Tracye K. Solove, Attorney at Law

Certified Civil Circuit Mediator

Tracye at solovelawfirm.com

Kendallwood Office Park One

12002 Southwest 128th Court

Suite 201

Miami, Florida  33186

Phone: (305) 612-0800

Facsimile: (305) 612-0801

http://www.solovelawfirm.com <http://www.solovelawfirm.com/> 

Providing Statewide Legal Services in the areas of Commercial Collections and Recovery, Creditors' Rights, Commercial Landlord/Tenant and Real Estate Foreclosures

This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If this notification is received by anyone other than the intended recipient(s), the recipient(s) should immediately notify the undersigned by E-MAIL and by telephone and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) except with the express written consent of the sender. Thank you. 

From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Reese J. Henderson, Jr.
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 6:12 PM
To: constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] FW: Legislative Committee Report

Re-sending as I appeared to have addressed it incorrectly in my earlier email:

Folks,

This shall serve as the report of the Legislative Subcommittee for today's call.

First, we adopt the report of the Construction Regulatino Subcommittee as it relates to the 84 (essentially 42x2) construction-related bills that have been filed for consideration during the 2012 legislative sessin that begins tomorrow.

Second, we are tracking two bills (well, 2x2 = 4) of particular interest:

HB 897 / SB 1202 - relating to construction liens and bonds (copies attached).

Summary:  Rep. Moraitis and Sen. Bogdanoff have submitted companion bills to make a numbers of changes to Chapters 255 and 713, including:  (1) requiring additional information be added to a request for sworn statement of account served by an owner to assist a lienor in identifying the account to which the request pertains; (2) providing that deadlines for serving the notice to contractor, notice of nonpayment and payment bond lawsuit run from time the lienor is "notified in writing" of the existence of the bond, in the event the bond is not recorded in the official records before commencement of construction; (3) the burden of serving a notice of contest of lien or a notice of contest of payment bond claim is shifted from the Clerk to the owner or the general contractor, respectively; (4) the class of persons protected by a payment bond and the effective duration of the payment bond may not be shortened from what is provided in the statute (and any provisions in the bond to the contrary would be unenforceable); and (5) a request for sworn statement of account could be served by a lienor whether or not the lineor has recorded a claim of lien.  Note:  CLC members have discussed with the supporters of this bill merging the CLC's lien law proposed changes approved last year with this bill, and the response was very receptive.  The Section's lobbyist is working on getting these added to the bill along with changes to the existiing bill requested by our committee.

HB 1013 / SB 1196 - relating to residential construction warranties (copies attached).

Summary:  Rep. Artiles and Sen. Bennett have filed companion bills - which are identical - which target the decision of the Fifth DCA in the Maronda Homes decision and seek to overturn it.  In Maronda Homes, the Fifth DCA held that the implied warranty of habitability extends to the construction of roads, stormwater drainage systems and retention ponds.  However, the bills, as currently drafted, go significantly further than overturning Maronda Homes by adopting a severely restrictive definition of the term "habitability" which would effectively overturn much of the existing caselaw under Gable v. Silver and its progeny.  Further, the bill would apply retroactively.  Note:  The RPPTL section's lobbyist has met with the bills' sponsors to discuss the Section's concerns with the bill and initial reports were that the sponsors were receptive to amendments.  It is not known as of this writing whether RPPTL will take a legislative position on this bill.

Finally, attached for everyone's review and consideration are the following:

HB 963 / SB 1458 - adoption of Revised Uniform Arbitration Code

This is the bill prepared and submitted on behalf of the Business Law Section of The Florida Bar and contains a substantial re-write of the Florida Arbitration Code.  The changes are too voluminous to summarize here.  All persons whose practice encompasses the use of ADR are strongly encouraged to review the provisions of this bill and familiarize themselves with the very substantial changes they would bring.

Reese

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

GRAY | ROBINSON <http://www.gray-robinson.com/> 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20120110/597afea0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 7190 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20120110/597afea0/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 4773 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/constructionlaw/attachments/20120110/597afea0/image002.gif>