Category Archives: Lien

FINAL FURNISHING DATE IS A QUESTION OF FACT

Posted on by


Construction liens need to be recorded within 90 days from the lienor’s final furnishing date on the project.  This date is exclusive of punchlist or warranty work. The final furnishing date needs to be proven at trial to establish that the construction lien was timely recorded.  If there is an evidentiary dispute as the final furnishing date (the contractor claims the date was “x” to establish the lien was timely and the owner claims the date was “y” to establish the lien was untimely), then the date is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. 

 

For instance, in Best Drywall Services, Inc. v. Blasczyk, 2016 WL 6246701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), a contractor and owner entered into an oral agreement for a residential renovation project.  The contractor recorded a construction lien after its final two invoices went unpaid.  During trial, the contractor offered conflicting evidence as to when its final furnishing date on the project was.  Numerous dates were offered in the record including dates that were more than 90 days prior to the date the contractor recorded its lien, meaning the lien was arguably untimely.  As a result, the trial judge entered a directed verdict in favor of the owner and against the contractor on the contractor’s lien claim finding the lien was untimely recorded. 

 

On appeal, the Second District reversed the directed verdict against the contractor on its construction lien expressing that the conflicting evidence on different final furnishing dates was sufficient to create an issue of fact for the jury to determine the timeliness of the contractor’s lien–“If there are conflicts in the evidence or different reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury.”  Best Drywall Services, Inc. supra quoting Simz v. Cristinzio, 898 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). 

 

The final furnishing date is an important part of any construction lien claim to establish the timeliness of the lien.  Make sure this final furnishing date can be supported by reasonable competent evidence (testimonial evidence supported by daily reports, payroll records, pay apps, inspections, etc.). 

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.

PROPERLY TERMINATING A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT

Posted on by


In prior postings I have discussed the importance of the notice of commencement, particularly when it comes to notifying lienors of applicable information regarding their construction lien or payment bond rights and the priority of construction liens.

 

In certain circumstances, it may be in an owner’s best interest to terminate the effectiveness of the notice of commencement by recording a notice of termination of the notice of commencement.   This is governed by Florida Statute s. 713.132 set forth at the bottom of this article.

 

An owner cannot record a notice of termination of the notice of commencement as a “gotcha” tactic simply because it does not want to pay lienors or wants to lessen the value of potential liens by impacting the priority of those liens.  If this were the case, owners may regularly try to employ this tactic as a means to reduce payment obligations or pay cents on the dollar (since a construction lien is only as good as the priority of that lien and the equity in the real property).   To this point, s. 713.132(3) specifies those occasions when an owner can record a notice of termination of a notice of commencement:

 

An owner may not record a notice of termination except after completion of construction, or after construction ceases before completion and all lienors have been paid in full or pro rata in accordance with s. 713.06(4). If an owner or a contractor, by fraud or collusion, knowingly makes any fraudulent statement or affidavit in a notice of termination or any accompanying affidavit, the owner and the contractor, or either of them, as the case may be, is liable to any lienor who suffers damages as a result of the filing of the fraudulent notice of termination; and any such lienor has a right of action for damages occasioned thereby.

 

In a nutshell, an owner may terminate the notice of commencement by:

  1. Recording a notice of termination that references the OR BK and PG of the notice of commencement and contains the same information in the notice of commencement;
  2. Identifying the date in the notice of termination that the notice of commencement will be terminated, but the termination cannot be less than 30 days after the notice of termination is recorded (meaning the notice of commencement will NOT be terminated until at least 30 days after it is recorded);
  3. Stating that ALL lienors have been paid in full;
  4. Stating that before recording the notice of termination of the notice of commencement, the owner served a copy of the notice of termination on its contractor, anyone directly hired by the owner, and on anyone that served a notice to owner UNLESS the owner received a final waiver and release of lien upon final payment from that lienor; and
  5. Including the contractor’s payment affidavit identifying the amount it is owed and that it owes lienors, which the owner can rely on in preparing the notice of termination. 

 

Once the notice of termination of the notice of commencement is recorded, construction liens recorded after the termination will NOT relate back to the notice of commencement (thus, impacting the priority of the liens).  This is why it is important to record any construction lien within 30 days once you receive a notice of termination of the notice of commencement if you have NOT been paid in full or there is a payment dispute.

 

For example, in Lasalle Bank National Association v. Blackton, Inc., 59 So.3d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), the home-builder recoded a notice of termination of the notice of commencement that terminated the notice of commencement 30 days from its recording.  Attached to the notice of termination was the homebuilder’s payment affidavit.  There were no liens within this 30-day window.   After homeowners moved into the house and their mortgage was recorded, they notified the homebuilder of certain defects/warranty items, and the homebuilder engaged a new subcontractor to fix the defects/warranty items.  The subcontractor was not paid and recorded a lien.  The issue was whether the subcontractor’s lien related back to the notice of commencement and took priority over the homeowners’ mortgage.   The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the mortgage had priority since the notice of commencement was terminated and the lien was recorded after the notice of commencement had been terminated.  This meant the lien was inferior to the mortgage. 

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.

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.

 

WHAT IS A FRAUDULENT LIEN?

Posted on by

What is a fraudulent lien? 

 

Just because a construction lien is recorded does not mean the lien is a fraudulent lien.  In fact, getting a lien declared a fraudulent lien is not an easy feat.

 

A fraudulent lien is defined in Florida’s Lien Law.  Florida Statute s. 713.31(2)(a) states:

 

“Any lien asserted under this part in which the lienor has willfully exaggerated the amount for which such lien is claimed or in which the lienor has willfully included a claim for work not performed upon or materials not furnished for the property upon which he or she seeks to impress such lien or in which the lienor has compiled his or her claim with such willful and gross negligence as to amount to a willful exaggeration shall be deemed a fraudulent lien.”

 

But, “a minor mistake or error in a claim of lien, or a good faith dispute as to the amount due does not constitute a willful exaggeration that operates to defeat an otherwise valid lien.” Fla. Stat. s. 713.31(2)(b).

 

So, a lien that (a) willfully exaggerates the amount, (b) willfully includes work not performed or materials not furnished, or is (c) compiled with willful and gross negligence, constitutes a fraudulent lien.   But, a minor mistake in a lien does not constitute willful exaggeration to constitute a fraudulent lien. And, a good faith dispute as to what a lienor claims it is owed does not constitute willful exaggeration to constitute a fraudulent lien.

 

What is the recourse if a fraudulent lien is recorded?

 

Florida Statute s. 713.31(2)(b) explains:

 

“It is a complete defense to any action to enforce a lien under this part, or against any lien in any action in which the validity of the lien is an issue, that the lien is a fraudulent lien; and the court so finding is empowered to and shall declare the lien unenforceable, and the lienor thereupon forfeits his or her right to any lien on the property upon which he or she sought to impress such fraudulent lien.”

 

So, if a fraudulent lien is declared, the lienor loses its lien—the lien becomes unenforceable. 

 

Plus, with respect to an action for damages, s. 713.31(2)(c) states:

 

“An owner against whose interest in real property a fraudulent lien is filed, or any contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor who suffers damages as a result of the filing of the fraudulent lien, shall have a right of action for damages occasioned thereby. The action may be instituted independently of any other action, or in connection with a summons to show cause under s. 713.21, or as a counterclaim or cross-claim to any action to enforce or to determine the validity of the lien. The prevailing party in an action under this paragraph may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. If the lienor who files a fraudulent lien is not the prevailing party, the lienor shall be liable to the owner or the defrauded party who prevails in an action under this subsection in damages, which shall include court costs, clerk’s fees, a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs for services in securing the discharge of the lien, the amount of any premium for a bond given to obtain the discharge of the lien, interest on any money deposited for the purpose of discharging the lien, and punitive damages in an amount not exceeding the difference between the amount claimed by the lienor to be due or to become due and the amount actually due or to become due.”

 

So, in addition to the fraudulent lien being declared unenforceable, the lienor can be liable for damages including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, court costs, and, potentially, punitive damages in an amount not exceeding the difference between the amount claimed by the lienor to be due and the amount actually due.

 

What does this mean?

 

It is important for lienors  to consult with counsel prior to preparing and recording a lien since a routine defense to a lien is that the lien is an unenforceable fraudulent lien.

 

Here are important tidbits regarding fraudulent liens:

 

 

  • Including amounts in the lien NOT authorized by contract can render the lien fraudulent. See Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill v. Volpe Const. Co., Inc., 511 So.2d 642, 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“The inclusion of items not authorized by change orders or by contract renders the lien fraudulent and unenforceable.”); accord In re Hayes, 305 B.R. 361, 366-67 (M.D.Fla. 2003).   For instance, think disputed change order requests.  Sometimes, it is better to pursue these amounts in a breach of contract action so as not to risk the lien being declared fraudulent.  But see In re American Fabricators, 917 B.R. 987, 992 (M.D.Fla. 1996): “The test for determining whether extras [changes] are lienable under Florida’s mechanics’ lien law is whether work was performed (i) in good faith; (ii) within a reasonable time; (iii) pursuant to the terms of the contract; and (iv) is necessary to finish the job.”

 

  • Consulting with counsel including full and complete disclosure of pertinent facts regarding the lien will help establish that there is a good faith dispute as to the amount in the lien and, therefore, there is no willful exaggeration to support a fraudulent lien.   As one appellate court explained “[A] lienor can rely on consultation with counsel prior to filing the claim of lien as evidence of good faith only in the event of a full and complete disclosure of the pertinent facts to the attorney from whom the advice is sought before the lienor acts on the advice. Consultation with an attorney is not entitled to any legal weight if the contractor did not disclose all pertinent facts to the attorney.”  Check out this article for more information on the value of consulting with counsel.

 

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.