Tag Archives: construction lien

LIS PENDENS – RECORDATION AND DISSOLUTION

Posted on by


When you file a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit, you must also record a lis pendens in the official (public) records against the property.  This lis pendens serves as written notice that there is a lawsuit concerning the real property, and more specifically, title relating to that real property. If the property is then sold or rented, the buyer or tenant will ultimately be bound by a final determination relating to the lawsuit concerning title to the property.  This is the value in recording a lis pendens and why it is a MUST in any foreclosure lawsuit.  (This is the same value in any mortgage foreclosure lawsuit and why lis pendens are recorded in these lawsuits too.)  A lis pendens will show up in a title report.  In most instances, title companies will not issue a title policy if there is a lis pendens or may require a certain amount of money escrowed as a result of the lis pendens and pending action in order to issue a title policy.  Also, a buyer, in particular, and a tenant are not going to want to invest in property where the title to that property is at-issue in a lawsuit.  Hence, the lis pendens impacts the sale and potential re-financing of the property. 

 

With respect to the dissolution of a lis pendens, Florida Statute s. 48.23(3) provides:

 

When the pending pleading does not show that the action is founded on a duly recorded instrument [e.g., mortgage or Declaration of Condominium] or on a [construction] lien claimed under part I of chapter 713 or when the action no longer affects the subject property, the court shall control and discharge the recorded notice of lis pendens as the court would grant and dissolve injunctions.

 

Therefore, if the lawsuit (i) does not affect title to the real property, (ii) is not based on a construction lien, or (iii) is not based on a duly recorded instrument, such as a mortgage, an owner of real property is going to move to dissolve the lis pendens so that title to their property is not impacted by the lis pendens.   This is, at least, what an owner should do.

 

What happens if a lis pendens is recorded but the lawsuit is not a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit or founded on a duly recorded instrument such as a mortgage?

 

For example, what if there is a lawsuit for the specific performance of a purchase-sale contract involving real property?  In this instance, the party suing for the specific performance of the real property to be sold to it will want to record a lis pendens to put the public on notice that there is an action concerning title to that property.  But, this type of lawsuit is not founded on a duly recorded instrument or construction lien.  For this reason, the owner of the property will move to dissolve the lis pendens so that they can sell the property or re-finance the property, as the case may be.

 

A recent decision in Regents Park Investments, LLC v. Bankers Lending Services, Inc., 41 Fla.L.Weekly D1688c (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), exemplifies the scenario of a lis pendens being recorded in a dispute concerning the sale of real property and the owner of the property moving to dissolve the lis pendens.  The buyer filed a lawsuit for specific performance to force the owner to sell the property to it.  The buyer also recorded a lis pendens (as the buyer did not want the owner to sell the property to another buyer).  The owner moved to dissolve the lis pendens so that it could do what it wanted with the property without the impact of the lis pendens. 

 

The Third District explained that the burden was on the proponent of the lis pendens—the buyer that sued for specific performance that recorded the lis pendens—to establish a fair nexus between the claim asserted in the lawsuit and the real property’s title.  Regents Park Investments, quoting Nu-Vision, LLC v. Corporate Convenience, Inc., 965 So.2d 232, 234-36 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).  This fair nexus means the proponent of the lis pendens must make a minimal evidentiary showing they have a good faith, viable claim in the lawsuit concerning the property’s title.  Id.

 

The appellate court, based on this minimal evidentiary showing of a fair nexus between the asserted claim and title the property, maintained:

 

Applying the standard of a minimal showing that there is at least some basis for the underlying claim and a good faith basis to allege facts that would at least state a viable claim, we conclude that Regents [buyer suing for specific performance that recorded lis pendens] met that standard. Regents’ showing that its claims arose out of a written contract for sale of the subject properties established a “fair nexus” to the properties and its Interrogatory answers swearing that it was ready, willing and able to close on the closing date, together with evidence that Bankers [owner] was not able to close because of the outstanding lot clearing liens against the property, provided a sufficient minimal basis to support either a claim that Regents could have performed or that its performance was excused. Consequently, we find that the trial court should not have discharged the lis pendens and reverse with instructions that it be reinstated. 

This fair nexus standard requiring a minimal evidentiary showing provides an advantage to a buyer that sued for specific performance and recorded the lis pendens.  It simply requires the buyer to proffer some evidence to support that they have a good faith, viable claim concerning title to the property.  If the buyer cannot do this, the lis pendens should be dissolved. On the other hand, if a buyer supports this fair nexus standard, then the lis pendens will not be dissolved meaning the owner’s real property will continue to be impacted by the lis pendens.  In such scenario, the owner may ask the court to require that the proponent of the lis pendens furnish a bond in the event it turns out that the buyer’s claim is not valid meaning the lis pendens was wrongfully recorded.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

 

 

QUICK NOTE: PERFECTING & PRESERVING CONSTRUCTION LIEN & PAYMENT BOND RIGHTS

Posted on by

imagesYou are a subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or supplier on a construction project.  What steps can you take to maximize your ability to collect payment?  

 

 

  1. Read this chart to understand what steps you need to undertake to preserve and perfect construction lien or payment bond rights. This chart will assist you with what notices you may need to serve to preserve your lien or payment bond rights and the timing to do so.  
  2.  Read this article that has tidbits to maximize payment on a private construction project.  This article will be beneficial for any subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or supplier that performs work on a private construction project. 
  3. Take a look at the below presentation.  This is a presentation I put on with a notice company that summarizes steps you can implement to preserve your rights and increase your chances to timely collect payment.
  4. Please consult a construction attorney so that you can be proactive and not necessarily reactive when it comes to perfecting and preserving your rights.

 

[gview file=”https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FL-Mechanics-Liens-Roofers-DMA.pptx”]

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

QUICK NOTE: FILING THE “SHOW CAUSE” COMPLAINT REGARDING A CONSTRUCTION LIEN

Posted on by

imagesI have talked about your options when there is a construction lien on your property.  One option discussed is the “show cause” complaint pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.21(4) where you sue the construction lienor giving them 20 days to show cause why its lien should not be enforced or vacated and cancelled. If the lienor fails to show cause within the 20 days by filing its construction lien foreclosure lawsuit within this time frame, the court must order cancellation of the lien. See Ruffolo v. Parish & Bowman, Inc., 966 So.2d 434, 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“When a property owner invokes section 713.21(4), a lienor must strictly comply with section 713.21(4) in order to preserve its lien, and a trial court is without discretion to deviate from the statutorily specified time limits.”); Dracon Const. Inc. v. Facility Const. Management, Inc., 828 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (filing a motion for an extension of time to assert lien foreclosure lawsuit is not good cause warranting the court’s cancellation of the subcontractor’s lien.)

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A PREVAILING PARTY FOR PURPOSES OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN CONSTRUCTION LIEN DISPUTE

Posted on by


Just because you are suing to foreclose your construction lien does NOT mean you will automatically recover your attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.   There does NOT have to be a prevailing party for purposes of recovering attorney’s fees.  This means a court or arbitrator could rule that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees; thus, neither party can recover their attorney’s fees from the other (or presumed losing) party.  This is an important consideration because it is impossible to predict on the frontend whether a court or arbitrator will deem you the prevailing party for purposes of recovering your attorney’s fees. This is because a court or arbitrator is to employ the significant issues test to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues to be deemed the prevailing party; and, again, a court or arbitrator could find neither party prevailed on the significant issues, hence there is no prevailing party.

 

This issue was clarified the hard way in Wells v. Halmac Development, Inc., 41 Fla.L.Weekly D924a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) when an arbitrator ruled that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees.  (Check here for a history of this dispute.) The attorney’s fees incurred in the arbitration were probably significant so a party believed it should have been declared the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees and continued to fight this issue in court when the arbitration award was trying to be confirmed and enforced.  The fight turned acrimonious–there were motions for sanctions served and two appeals. 

 

Of applicability here, one of the appeals dealt with whether the trial court should have granted attorney’s fees pursuant to a motion for sanctions due to the opposing party continuing to try to declare itself as the prevailing party after (a) the arbitrator determined there would be no prevailing party and (b) the arbitrator’s determination corresponded with the law.  The Third District held that the motion for sanctions should have been granted awarding the party attorney’s fees because the continuous fight to be declared the prevailing party was not colorable under the law—the law was clear that there did NOT have to be a prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in a construction lien action.  On this point, the Third District stated:

 

In fact, at the time Castro filed his motion requesting the trial court to declare him the prevailing party, the Florida Supreme Court had already weighed in on this issue and had explicitly “reject[ed] the notion that in every construction lien case the trial court is compelled to find a prevailing party.” Trytek, 3 So. 3d at 1204 n. 13. The Trytek court further emphasized that there might not always be a “prevailing party” in these types of suits and held that “the possibility that neither party is a ‘prevailing party’ is consistent with an application of the ‘significant issues’ test of Moritz and .” Id. at 1203. Most notably for our analysis, Trytek made it clear that Hollub and similar cases should not be read to mean that a prevailing party must be declared in a construction lien action:

We do not construe any of the appellate cases concerning prevailing party attorneys’ fees to mandate that there be a prevailing party, only that where a “prevailing party” is determined, the entitlement to attorneys’ fees is mandatory. See Pennington & Assocs., Inc. v. Evans, 932 So.2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Hollub Constr. Co. v. Narula, 704 So.2d 689, 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Grant v. Wester, 679 So.2d 1301, 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Sanfilippo v. Larry Giacin Tile Co., 390 So.2d 413, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We reject the notion that in every construction lien case the trial court is compelled to find a prevailing party. See Kenmark Constr., Inc. v. Cronin, 765 So.2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (declining to announce a bright-line rule that a trial court must find a prevailing party in every construction lien action).

Id. at 1204 n. 13.

The Trytek decision — issued in 2009 — represented the settled law in Florida well before the arbitration proceedings in this case, and the arbitrator specifically relied upon and cited to Trytek in its determination that “there is no prevailing party for the purposes of an award of attorney’s fees.” Therefore, Castro’s counsel knew or should have known that any claim that Castro was entitled to be declared the prevailing party, after the arbitrator clearly determined there was no prevailing party, “[w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” § 57.105(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2012). This court has already and necessarily made this very determination when we held (in the prior appeal) that the trial court had no legal basis upon which to overturn the arbitrator’s determination (that there was no prevailing party) and to declare that Castro was the prevailing party.

Wells, supra. 

 

If you extract anything from this case, it is that a court or arbitrator does NOT have to deem a party the prevailing party in a construction lien case. The court or arbitrator will do this by finding that neither party prevailed on the significant issues of the case (as determined by the court or arbitrator).  As such, neither party is the prevailing party and neither party is entitled to attorney’s fees from the opposing party.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

THERE IS VALUE RECORDING A NOTICE OF CONTEST OF LIEN

Posted on by


If you receive a construction lien on your property, I have preached the value in recording a Notice of Contest of Lien to shorten the lienor’s statute of limitations to foreclose on the lien from 1 year to 60 days.  If the unwary lienor fails to foreclose its lien within the shortened 60-day window, its lien is extinguished under the law. Ouch! (Check out this article and this article for more on Notice of Contest of Liens.)

 

Now, what if a lienor timely forecloses its lien and during the lien foreclosure lawsuit the lien is transferred from the real property to a lien transfer bond.  Typically, if a lien foreclosure lawsuit is underway and the lien is transferred to a lien transfer bond, the lienor has one year from the date of the transfer to amend its lawsuit to sue the lien transfer bond.   Could the owner record a Notice of Contest of Lien to shorten the lienor’s statute of limitations to amend its lawsuit from one year from the date of the transfer to 60 days?

 

In a recent case, the Second District held that an owner could record a Notice of Contest of Lien AFTER the lienor filed its lien foreclosure lawsuit to shorten to limitations period for the lienor to amend its lawsuit to sue the lien transfer bond to 60 days.   In this case, because the lienor failed to amend its lawsuit within 60 days, the Second District held that the lienor lost its right to sue the lien transfer bond.  This means the lienor no longer gets to foreclose its lien (against the real property or the lien transfer bond) all because a Notice of Contest of Lien was recorded after the lien foreclosure lawsuit was filed and after the lien was transferred to the bond.  This case serves as a huge “W” for owners that appreciate the value of the Notice of Contest of Lien! See Hiller v. Phoenix Associates of South Florida, Inc., 41 Fla.L.Weekly D881d (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“It is undisputed Phoenix [lienor] took no action in this case within sixty days after Hiller [owner] transferred the lien to a bond and served the notice of contest.  It is this failure on the part of Phoenix that compels reversal in this case.  The fact that Phoenix had a proceeding pending against the lien at the same time of the transfer did not excuse compliance with the other provisions of Chapter 713 [Lien Law]).”)

 

Remember, there is oftentimes a strategic value recording a Notice of Contest of Lien  if you are dealing with a construction lien.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

WHAT TO DO IF THE PAYMENT BOND IS NOT RECORDED WITH THE NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT

Posted on by


There is an unconditional payment bond for the project but it was not recorded with the Notice of Commencement.  Now there are subcontractor construction liens recorded against the property.  What do I do?  I thought the point of the payment bond was to exempt the real property from subcontractor and supplier liens.

 

No need to worry!  Liens can be transferred to the payment bond even though the payment bond was not recorded with the Notice of Commencement.

 

The payment bond operates to “secure every lien under the direct contract accruing subsequent to its execution and delivery.”  Fla.Stat. s. 713.23(2).  Even though the payment bond was not recorded with the Notice of Commencement as required, the owner or contractor can record a Notice of Bond with a copy of the payment bond that will operate to transfer the lien to the security of the payment bond. 

 

To this point, Florida Statute s. 713.13(1)(e) states in relevant part:

 

[I]f a payment bond under s. 713.23 exists but was not attached at the time of recordation of the notice of commencement, the bond may be used to transfer any recorded lien of a lienor except that of the contractor by the recordation and service of a notice of bond pursuant to s. 713.23(2). The notice requirements of s. 713.23 apply to any claim against the bond; however, the time limits for serving any required notices shall, at the option of the lienor, be calculated from the dates specified in s. 713.23 or the date the notice of bond is served on the lienor.

Stated differently, just because the payment bond was not recorded with the Notice of Commencement does not mean the payment bond is worthless.  Rather, it can still be used to transfer construction liens to the security of the bond. 

Further, if discovered early enough, and within the effective period of the Notice of Commencement,  an Amended Notice of Commencement can be recorded which attaches a copy of the payment bond.  The Amended Notice of Commencement needs to be served by the owner “upon the contractor and each lienor who serves notice before or within 30 days after the date the amended notice is recorded.”  Fla.Stat. s. 713.13(5)(b). But, the Amended Notice of Commencement can be used to clarify the omission of the payment bond in the original Notice of Commencement.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

CONDITIONAL PAYMENT BONDS AND TRANSFERRING A LIEN TO THAT BOND

Posted on by


There are two types of statutory payment bonds that can be furnished on private construction projects in Florida: (1) unconditional payment bonds issued pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.23 and (2) conditional payment bonds issued pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.245.

 

With an unconditional payment bond, an owner’s real property is exempt from construction liens from subcontractors and suppliers.

 

However, with a conditional payment bond, an owner’s real property is not exempt from construction liens from subcontractors and suppliers.  The conditional payment bond operates to condition claims against the bond to the extent the general contractor (principal of the bond) received payment from the owner.  If the general contractor did not receive payment from the owner, then the conditional payment bond does not apply.  If the general contractor did receive payment from the owner, then the conditional payment bond can operate to transfer the lien to the security of the conditional payment bond.

 

Because a lienor realistically has no way of knowing whether the general contractor was paid for their work, they are required to timely perfect their lien rights under Florida law.  This means serving a Notice to Owner and recording a construction lien within 90 days of final furnishing. 

 

Conditional payment bonds are fairly confusing so let’s use hypotheticals to explain.

 

Hypothetical #1:   Owner pays contractor for painting scope of work.  Painter timely served a Notice to Owner and recorded its lien for $75,000. 

 

The objective here would be to transfer the painter’s lien to the conditional payment bond since the contractor has been paid for this work. Under this scenario, the owner or the contractor can record within 90 days from the recording of the lien a Certificate of Payment to the Contractor certifying that the contractor has been paid $75,000 (full lien amount) for the work described in the lien.   The Certificate of Payment to the Contractor would be recorded with a Notice of Bond attaching a copy of the conditional payment bond.

 

If the contractor records the Certificate of Payment to the Contractor (together with the Notice of Bond), then the lien will be transferred to the conditional payment bond to the extent of the payment identified. 

 

If the owner records the Certificate of Payment to the Contractor (together with the Notice of Bond), the contractor can do three things: (1) record a Joinder in Certificate of Payment agreeing with the Certificate of Payment to the Contractor recorded by the owner, (2) record a Notice of Contest of Payment stating that the contractor has only been paid “x” amount of the lien; or (3) do nothing.   If the contractor does nothing or records a joinder in the Certificate of Payment, the lien will be transferred to the bond.  If the contractor records a Notice of Contest of Payment, the “contested” portion will remain a lien against the real property and any uncontested amount will be transferred to the conditional payment bond.

 

Hypothetical #2:  Owner paid contractor $50,000 but painter’s lien is $75,000.  Owner records Certificate of Payment to the Contractor for $75,000.

 

Under this scenario, the contractor may want to record a Notice of Contest of Payment within 90 days from the lien certifying it has only been paid $50,000.  If the contractor does this, the painter will have a $25,000 lien claim (the contested amount) and a $50,000 claim transferred to the conditional payment bond (the uncontested amount) since this amount would be transferred to the bond.

 

Hypothetical #3: Owner paid contractor for the painter’s scope and the painter liened.  Neither the contractor nor the owner recorded a Certificate of Payment to the Contractor together with a Notice of Bond within 90 days from the lien.

 

Under this scenario, the painter’s lien has not been transferred to the conditional payment bond even though the owner paid the contractor for the painting scope of work.   But, the lien can still be transferred to the security of the conditional payment bond even after 90 days and even after the painter files a lien foreclosure lawsuit.  The same procedure will still need to be followed with the recording of a Certificate of Payment to the Contractor together with the Notice of Bond. The difference is that the Notice of Bond must be jointly signed by the owner, the contractor, and the surety for the lien to be transferred to the bond.  See Fla.Stat. 713.245(4) (“Any notice of bond recorded more than 90 days after the recording of the claim of lien shall have no force or effect as to that lien unless the owner, the contractor and the surety all sign the notice of bond.”).

 

As you can see, conditional payment bonds can be procedurally confusing.  The key for a lienor is that it still must perfect its lien rights and record and pursue its construction lien.  The key for the owner and the contractor is that there are steps in place to transfer the lien or a portion of that lien (based on what the contractor has been paid) to the security of the conditional payment bond.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

CHARTS AND GRAPHICS SUMMARIZING PAYMENT BOND AND CONSTRUCTION LIEN RIGHTS

Posted on by


As they say, a picture is worth a 1,000 words.  How about charts and graphics?

Check out this chart that summarizes preserving and enforcing construction lien and payment bond rights in Florida.

Check out this chart that summarizes Miller Act payment bond rights in comparison to Florida private and public payment bond rights.

 

Check out this graphic that depicts Miller Act payment bond claimants.

And, finally, check out this graphic that depicts those entities entitled to construction liens and payment bond rights under Florida law.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

AN AMENDED LIEN DOES NOT DELAY THE 60 DAY WINDOW TO FORECLOSE A LIEN WHEN A NOTICE OF CONTEST OF LIEN IS RECORDED

Posted on by


I previously discussed the value of an owner recording a Notice of Contest of Lien under Florida Statute s. 713.22 to shorten a lienor’s statute of limitations to foreclose a construction lien to 60 days from the date the lien is contested.   For more information on recording a Notice of Contest of Lien please look at this posting and this posting.

 

What happens if after a Notice of Contest of Lien is recorded the lienor amends its construction lien? For instance, say the following sequence occurs:

 

1:  Lien

2:  Notice of Contest of Lien

3: Amended Lien

 

Does an owner need to record another Notice of Contest of Lien for the Amended Lien?  If an owner does, then a lienor could extend its 60 day window to foreclose its lien by simply recording an amended lien.

 

This exact scenario was addressed long ago by the Florida Supreme Court in Jack Stilson & Co. v. Caloosa Bayview Corp., 278 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1973) which held that the foreclosure of an amended lien MUST still be brought within the 60 days from the initial Notice of Contest of Lien.  In other words, the recording of an amended lien does NOT toll (or stop) the running of the 60 day window to foreclose the lien when a Notice of Contest of Lien is recorded.

 

Therefore, if you are an owner, there is certainly a benefit to recording a Notice of Contest of Lien.  Conversely, if you are a contractor, do not think you can delay or escape the 60 day window to foreclose your construction lien if you received a Notice of Contest of Lien by simply amending your lien.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.