Contractors That Allow Court Notices to Fall Through the Cracks Will Face Severe Consequences
Florida's construction lien law demands strict adherence by contractors in legal disputes with their customers. A recent ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal adds yet another example to a number of similar rulings against lienors who failed to follow the statutorily required mandates in the pursuit of their claim.
January 16, 2018 at 11:04 AM
4 minute read
Florida's construction lien law demands strict adherence by contractors in legal disputes with their customers. A recent ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal adds yet another example to a number of similar rulings against lienors who failed to follow the statutorily required mandates in the pursuit of their claim.
In the case of Rabil v. Seaside Builders, a dispute arose between the homeowners and their contractor. Thereafter, the contractor recorded a construction lien against the property under Chapter 713, Florida Statutes, and filed suit. The homeowners responded by posting a lien transfer bond and recording a notice of contest of lien. The notice shortened the time for the contractor to file suit against the transfer bond from one year to 60 days. The clerk of court recorded a certificate of transfer of the lien to bond and mailed a copy to the contractor along with the notice of contest of lien.
When the contractor failed to file suit against the surety within 60 days of the recording of the notice of contest of lien as required under sections 713.22 and 713.24, Florida Statutes, the homeowners moved to release the bond, dismiss the foreclosure complaint and discharge the lis pendens. The contractor responded by arguing the homeowners' motion should be denied based on “principles of equity and excusable neglect,” noting that the company and its legal counsel were unaware of the lien transfer bond and the notice of contest until the homeowners requested to release the bond.
The lower court took issue with the homeowners' failure to send copies of the lien transfer bond and notice of contest to the contractor's counsel, and it found that the notice of contest failed to advise the contractor that it needed to file suit against the surety within 60 days. The homeowners responded that appropriate notice was given under the statute, but the court denied their motion and allowed the contractor to file an amended complaint naming the surety as a party.
In their subsequent appeal, the homeowners argued that the lien was transferred to the bond and the property was released from the lien. The clerk of court served a copy of the notice of contest on the contractor at the address shown on the claim of lien as required by the statute. Once the homeowners recorded a notice of contest of lien, the contractor had 60 days from service of the notice to file suit against the surety.
The contractor, which admitted that it received the notice, claims it was mishandled by an administrative assistant and was never delivered to a corporate officer or the company's legal counsel. It claims that the end result was that they did not receive notice until after the 60 days expired.
In essence, the contractor argued that the statutory notice provision of Section 713.22(2) violates due process because it does not require service on opposing counsel or that the lienor be informed that an additional suit must be filed.
The Fourth DCA's appellate panel was not swayed. Its unanimous opinion concluded that the legislature provided a statutory scheme, which the court must strictly construe. The homeowners complied with the statute, and the clerk properly noticed the contractor. When the contractor did not file suit against the surety within 60 days, the lien was automatically extinguished by operation of law, and the clerk was obligated to release the bond.
For Florida's construction industry, this ruling illustrates the strict requirements of the state's construction lien law as well as the critical nature of all communications and legal notices from the courts or from opposing litigants and their legal counsel. If lienors do not handle such notices with the highest level of priority, the ramifications can be extremely costly and severe. When it comes to communications from the courts involving ongoing litigation, nothing should be considered routine and unimportant, and everything must be consistently and immediately distributed to the appropriate company principals and legal counsel.
Nicholas D. Siegfried is a partner with the law firm of Siegfried, Rivera, Hyman, Lerner, De La Torre, Mars & Sobel in the firm's Coral Gables office who focuses on construction law and community association law. He is a Florida Bar board certified construction law specialist, and the firm also maintains offices in Broward and Palm Beach counties. He may be reached at [email protected] and 305-442-3334.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250