Construction Law Practitioners: New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Effect
Payment bonds guarantee payment for construction labor, services and materials. Payment bonds are mandatory for public projects with few exceptions.
December 26, 2019 at 09:46 AM
5 minute read
Payment bonds guarantee payment for construction labor, services and materials. Payment bonds are mandatory for public projects with few exceptions. Section 255.05, Florida Statutes, requires the general contractor to post a payment bond on each public project for the benefit of subcontractors, suppliers and laborers who work on the project. Public projects require bonds as substitutes for lien rights because public property cannot be subjected to liens and lien foreclosure. Private property owners have the option to render their property immune from construction liens by nonprivity contractors, suppliers and laborers by requiring their general contractor to post a statutory payment bond per Section 713.24, Florida Statutes.
Both the public and private payment bond statutes require bond claimants to timely serve notices that preserve bond-claim rights. The initial notice is generally known as a notice to contractor and must be timely served when a claimant commences work. The second notice is called a notice of nonpayment and it must be timely served after the claimant completes contractual performance. Since notices of nonpayment are not liens or encumbrances on real property there was never a requirement to sign each notice of nonpayment under oath. Now that has changed.
The state of Florida instituted changes to the statutes governing public-project payment bonds (Section 255.05, Florida Statutes) and private-project payment bonds (Section 713.23, Florida Statutes). The changes went into effect on Oct. 1. Previously, notices of nonpayment were not required to be signed under oath. Now, the law requires the use of specific statutory notice forms that claimants must sign under oath. Previously, there were no statutory penalties for claimants who exaggerated the amount claimed against a payment bond. Now there are specific statutory penalties against a claimant who willfully or negligently signs a notice of nonpayment that includes a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished, or who is guilty of signing a notice prepared with willful or gross negligence.
Public construction payment bonds are governed by section 255.05, Florida Statutes, also known as Florida's Little Miller Act. This statute requires all payment bond claimants who don't have a direct contract with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim.
Private construction payment bonds posted by the general contractor are governed by Section 713.23, Florida statutes. This statute requires all payment bond claimants including those contracting directly with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim. Another important change to section 713.23 is the new requirement that payment bond claimants specify the portion of their bond claim that represents retainage. Previously, the requirement to specify the amount claimed for retainage only applied to public projects—now it applies to both public and private projects.
The changes to Florida's payment bond statutes are intended to deter and penalize claimants who make exaggerated or fraudulent bond claims. It should be anticipated that the courts will apply the revised statutes in the same manner as established law regarding fraudulent liens since the statutory changes are modeled after Florida's fraudulent lien statute, Section 713.31, Florida Statutes. Claimants who previously used lien notice services or nonattorney collection companies to prepare their bond-claim notices should strongly consider using an experienced construction attorney to advise them regarding both liens and bond notices since the penalties for serving a false, exaggerated or negligently prepared notice are severe, and advice of legal counsel is a recognized defense to a fraudulent lien claim.
This article is not intended to cover all bond-claim requirements, nor is this article intended to provide legal advice. Every bond claim is different and parties should seek the advice and counsel of a Florida Bar Board Certified construction specialist to obtain legal advice regarding any bond claim.
Brian A. Wolf is a partner in the Fort Lauderdale office of Smith Currie and he is a Florida Bar board certified expert in construction law. Wolf is a former chairman of the construction law committee of the real property section of the Florida Bar, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Associated Builders and Contractors Florida East Coast Chapter.
Miles D. Jolley is an associate in the Fort Lauderdale offices of the firm and devotes his practice to construction law and government contracts.
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 AllLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
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