Tag Archives: lien priority

UNPREDICTABLE OPINION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION LIEN (REINSTATEMENT??)

Posted on by

Here comes the discussion of an appeal I was intimately involved in dealing with a construction lien. See Suntech Plumbing and Mechanical Corp. v. Bella Isla, LLC, 2022 WL 14672765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).  Unfortunately, it was a losing result on my end but not a losing result to the issue at-hand.  You should ask what in the world does this mean.  I will tell you.

Here is the fact pattern.  A subcontractor files a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit against an owner for unpaid contract balance.  In the same lawsuit, the subcontractor sues the general contractor for breach of contract and unjust enrichment associated with an approximate three-year delay on a construction project.  The project was scheduled to be completed in 2019.  It was not.  The project was pushed into COVID and into 2022.  (The subcontractor did not sue the general contractor for amounts subject to the lien foreclosure claim.) The general contractor, assuming the defense of the owner, moved to stay the lawsuit pending the outcome of arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the subcontract.  The subcontractor did not dispute the arbitration provision, but argued that arbitration provision should not extend to the owner that was (a) not bound by the subcontract, (b) would not be a party to the arbitration, and (c) the amounts pled against the general contractor did not include the amounts subject of the lien foreclosure lawsuit.  At a minimum, the lawsuit should be stayed, not dismissed. Nevertheless, the trial court dismissed the entire lawsuit in an order that states that it is a final order with language that the lien may be “reinstated” after the outcome of the arbitration (that the owner is not a party to).

This is a big deal.  Construction liens are creatures of statute. And, a construction lien, no different than a mortgage, is only as good as its lien priority.  (The priority of a lien is critical!). Well, there is NO statutory procedure to reinstate a construction lien. None. There is also no authority that even contemplates such a procedure.  Thus, what happens to the priority of the lien and what happens to the corresponding lis pendens?  I have no clue other than the best recourse was to immediately appeal on two fronts: (1) appeal the trial court’s ruling as a final order based on language in the order stating it is a final order, and (2) in an abundance of caution, move for a petition of writ of certiorari due to the irreparable harm posed by the dismissal of a lien foreclosure lawsuit (regardless of the unheard-of reinstatement language).  This is the recourse pursued with the appeals consolidated.  The sentiment was that, at worst case, the appellate court would remand for the lawsuit to be stayed, not dismissed, so as not to impact the integrity (priority) of the lien and lis pendens.  The worst thought was that if the appeal was lost, there was not really a loss in this case because a loss would ultimately mean the lien and lis pendens are still in play where an argument cannot be made otherwise.  Although, honestly, a loss was not really considered here because there is no such thing as reinstating a lien.

Welcome to the unpredictability of the law.

First, the appellate court ruled that the trial court’s order, despite saying it was a final order, was not really a final order subject to an automatic appeal. “Because the trial court’s order of dismissal, however, is neither a final order nor an appealable nonfinal order we lack jurisdiction to consider [subcontractor’s] appeal of the dismissal order.”  See Suntech, supra, at *1.

Second, the appellate court ruled that the reinstatement language did not constitute irreparable harm to support the basis of certiorari relief.

[Subcontractor] alternatively seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order of dismissal; however, the trial court’s order expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce any arbitration award and to reinstate [subcontractor’s] lien foreclosure claim against [owner] should arbitration not resolve the matter. [Subcontractor] has therefore failed to establish irreparable harm necessitating exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction.

Suntech, supra, at *1.

Ok.  So, the lien (and lis pendens) should remain in effect.  But what about their priority?  How do you reinstate a dismissed construction lien (and how does this effect lien priority)? Why is the lien even dismissed when the owner is not a party to the arbitration and not bound by any arbitration award?  How is a dismissed lien not irreparable harm when the lien serves as the collateral for nonpayment? What happens to the lis pendens? Does this mean that a general contractor can always move to dismiss a lien foreclosure claim from a subcontractor based on an arbitration provision that the owner is not bound to or an arbitration the owner is not a party to?

I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. Do you?  The continued lack of answers prompted a motion for rehearing seeking clarity because the ruling, frankly, benefits no one in the construction industry and extends to buyers, sellers, title companies, etc. You can’t ignore the lien and lis pendens based on the appellate court’s ruling. But how do you treat the lien from a priority standpoint (including the lis pendens) and how the lien gets reinstated is another thing.

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.

 

And, again, welcome to the law! In my view, this is a bad opinion for the construction industry as a whole.  It will be used in the wrong fashion to create a situation where the lien and lis pendens are in some unknown legal purgatory with an undefined outcome.

 

VALUE IN RECORDING LIEN WITHIN EFFECTIVE NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT

Posted on by

Construction lien priority is no joke!   This is why a lienor wants to record its construction lien within an effective notice of commencement.  A lien recorded within an effective notice of commencement relates back in time from a priority standpoint to the date the notice of commencement was recorded.  A lienor that records a lien wants to ensure its lien is superior, and not inferior, to other encumbrances.  An inferior lien or encumbrance may not provide much value if there is not sufficient equity in the property. Plus, an inferior lien or encumbrance can be foreclosed.

An example of the importance of lien priority can be found in the recent decision of Edward Taylor Corp. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 45 Fla.L.Weekly D1447b (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). In this case, a contractor recorded a notice of commencement for an owner.  While an owner is required to sign the notice of commencement that the contractor usually records, in this case, the owner did not sign the notice of commencement.  Shortly after, the owner’s lender recorded a mortgage and then had the owner sign a notice of commencement and this notice of commencement was also recorded.  When there is a construction lender, the lender always wants to make sure its mortgage is recorded first—before any notice of commencement—for purposes of priority and has the responsibility to ensure the notice of commencement is recorded.  Here, the lender apparently did not realize the contractor had already recorded a notice of commencement at the time it recorded its mortgage.

An unpaid subcontractor recorded a lien and foreclosed on the lien.  Because the lien related back in time to the original notice of commencement, the subcontractor moved to foreclose the mortgage as an inferior interest.  (Remember, the mortgage was recorded after the notice of commencement the contractor recorded that was not signed by the owner.)  The lender argued that the notice of commencement was a legal nullity because it was not signed by the owner, therefore, its mortgage had priority.  The trial court agreed with the lender.  The appellate court did not:

[W]e hold that a notice of commencement not signed by the owner, but instead signed by the general contractor with the owner’s authority, is not a nullity, per se, in a lien foreclosure action brought by a subcontractor where the subcontractor has strictly complied with chapter 713 and relies upon the defective notice of commencement, which is otherwise in substantial compliance with section 713.07. In other words, the lender may not use the deficient notice of commencement as a sword against a subcontractor who bears no duty to ensure the validity and accuracy of the notice of commencement.

Edwin Taylor Corp., supra.

This is a good result for a subcontractor that is now in a position to have a lien that is superior to a lender’s mortgage — a situation that rarely occurs and should not occur.

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.

 

RECOMMENCING CONSTRUCTION ON A PROJECT DUE TO A CESSATION OR ABANDONMENT

Posted on by

shutterstock_733809610There are instances where the owner of a construction project terminates its general contractor prior to the completion of the project.  There are instances where the owner suspends the work prior to the completion of the project, meaning there is a cessation in the construction.  And, there are instances where the project is simply abandoned.  I have been involved in all instances, and the owner’s reasons vary…from an owner claiming a termination for default, termination for convenience, or a suspension or abandonment due to the market or financial factors. Regardless of the owner’s reasoning, at some point—hopefully—the owner will want to resume or, more properly stated, recommence construction and complete the project. 

 

Based on the length of the cessation, when the owner finally recommences construction, oftentimes the right approach is for the owner to strictly comply with the recommencement procedure set forth in Florida Statute s. 713.07(4):

 

 

If construction ceases or the direct contract is terminated before completion and the owner desires to recommence construction, he or she [1] may pay all lienors in full or pro rata in accordance with s. 713.06(4) prior to recommencement in which event all liens for the recommenced construction shall take priority from such recommencement; or [2] the owner may record an affidavit in the clerk’s office stating his or her intention to recommence construction and that all lienors giving notice have been paid in full except those listed therein as not having been so paid in which event 30 days after such recording, the rights of any person acquiring any interest, lien, or encumbrance on said property or of any lienor on the recommenced construction shall be paramount to any lien on the prior construction unless such prior lienor records a claim of lien within said 30-day period. A copy of said affidavit shall be served on each lienor named therein. Before recommencing, the owner shall record and post a notice of commencement for the recommenced construction, as provided in s. 713.13.  [Per Florida Statute s. 713.13(5)(a), if an owner changes contractors, the owner must record either a new notice of commencement or notice of recommencement.]

 

Under this statute, when the owner wants to recommence construction, the owner has two options. 

 

First, the owner can pay all lienors in full or pro rata pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.06(4), which lists the priority of payments to lienors.  I like the idea of getting final releases or a release through the date of payment with no carve-out (for retainage or otherwise).

 

Second, the owner can record an affidavit stating his/her intention to recommence construction and that all lienors giving notice (the contractor and those that served a notice to owner) have been paid in full except those specifically listed.   Thirty days after the affidavit is recorded, the rights of any person that acquires an interest in the property or liens the property is superior to any lien on the prior construction (before construction ceased) unless such lienor records a claim of lien within the 30-day window.   If the lienor already recorded a lien, the lienor would need to re-record the lien within this 30-day window to preserve its lien priority (although, importantly, the re-filing does not extend the one year period for the lienor to foreclose on its lien).   See Foy v. Mangum, 528 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (re-filing the lien ensures the lienor has priority over lienors performing recommenced work, but it does not delay the lienor’s requirement to timely foreclose the original recorded lien).  Any lienor identified in the affidavit would get served with a copy of the affidavit.

 

The owner also records a new notice of commencement / notice of recommencement for the recommenced work where any liens relating to the recommenced work would relate back, from a lien priority standpoint, to this notice of commencement.

 

A value to the owner complying with this procedure is that it can apply the remaining contract balance to the recommenced work and if the funds are expended the total amount the owner will be liable for liens recorded before the cessation could be reduced or eliminated (i.e., the proper payments defense). See Alton Towers, Inc. v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., 262 So.2d 671 (Fla. 1972) (if owner complies with the recommencement procedure, the owner’s liability is limited to original direct contract price, thus where completion costs exceeded defaulting contractor’s direct contract amount, supplier was not entitled to recover from owner).

 

If you are an owner or contractor involved in a ceased project, or a project where construction will be recommencing, it is in your interests to engage legal counsel familiar with the recommencement procedure.  It is important that you understand construction lien priority, how the recommencement can impact lien priority, and the owner’s potential liability if it properly complies with the recommencement procedure.

 

 

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.

 

TERMINATING THE NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT (WITH A NOTICE OF TERMINATION)

Posted on by

shutterstock_259385300The notice of commencement is important for purposes of construction lien priority.   Stock Bldg. Supply of Florida, Inc. v. Soares Da Costa Const. Services, LLC, 76 So.3d 313, 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“[A] notice of commencement serves to determine the priority of liens under the Construction Lien Law.”).   A lien relates back in time to the date the notice of commencement was recorded assuming the notice of commencement is still in effect when the lien is recorded (or an amended noticed of commencement is recorded).  Lien priority is very important and the reason why a contractor should always want to ensure there is an effective notice of commencement in place rather than an expired notice of commencement.

 

For the same reasons why a contractor wants to ensure there is an effective notice of commencement, there are times an owner wants to terminate a notice of commencement.  An owner may want to terminate the potential priority of a construction lien.  For instance, say the owner is refinancing or obtaining a construction loan in the midst of construction.  A lender will want to ensure its mortgage maintains first priority and certainly priority over a potential construction lien.  Otherwise, why would a lender finance the construction if it does not maintain first priority. It generally will not.  Thus, an owner needs to terminate the notice of commencement so that the closing occurs on the loan and the mortgage recorded before a new notice of commencement is recorded and construction continues.

 

Florida Statute s. 713.132 allows an owner to statutorily terminate the effectiveness of a notice of commencement by recording a notice of termination.  It is a statutory procedure that must be followed and it is important that an owner and contractor seek the assistance of counsel in following this procedure.  The statute contains in relevant part:

 

(3) 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.

 

(4) A notice of termination is effective to terminate the notice of commencement at the later of 30 days after recording of the notice of termination or the date stated in the notice of termination as the date on which the notice of commencement is terminated, if the notice of termination has been served pursuant to paragraph (1)(f) on the contractor and on each lienor who has a direct contract with the owner or who has served a notice to owner.

 

“If a notice of termination of a notice of commencement is recorded as a result of the cessation of construction, a new notice of commencement must be recorded before completion of the improvement may be recommenced.”  Stock Bldg. Supply of Florida, 76 So.3d at 317-18.    

 

From a lienor’s perspective, it is important that they understand that when a new notice of commencement is recorded, the lienor must re-serve any required notices to preserve lien or bond rights (such as a notice to owner or notice of intent to look to the contractor’s bond).  Stock Bldg. Supply of Florida, 76 So.3d at 318 (when owner recorded new notice of commencement, the project began anew and lienor was required to re-serve notices under Florida’s Construction Lien 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.

 

YES, LIEN PRIORITY IS IMPORTANT

Posted on by

UnknownWhen a construction lender forecloses, a lienor (e.g., contractor, subcontractor, supplier) is in a bad predicament because the lender’s mortgage will maintain priority over the lienor’s construction lien. The lienor would be named in the lender’s lawsuit (provided a lien has been recorded) because the lender will look to foreclose or wipe out the lienor’s inferior construction lien. 

 

From a real-world standpoint, if there is not enough equity in the real property to satisfy the lender’s mortgage / loan, there is not going to be any surplus from a foreclosure sale to satisfy the inferior construction lien(s).  Since a lien really is only as good as the equity in the real property being liened, if there is not any equity in the real property and/or the construction lender is foreclosing, pursuing the lien may be an exercise in futility.

 

Sometimes, due to the lack of equity in the real property at the time of the foreclosure, the lender will file the foreclosure lawsuit but delay in prosecuting the action.  One reason is that the lender knows the owner is under water and hopes the value in the property increases down the road.  The lender knows that it will ultimately take possession of the real property but at the time of the foreclosure the value of the property is much less than the amount owed under the loan. 

 

Unfortunately, irrespective of any delay by the lender in prosecuting the foreclosure, the lender’s interest in the real property will always take priority.  There is little the lienor can do to establish that its lien should jump priority over the lender’s mortgage.  This point was confirmed in the non-construction case U.S. Bank National Association v. Farhood, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D12594a (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), where the appellate court claimed that it was error for a trial court to sanction a lender in a mortgage foreclosure lawsuit for dilatory practices by deeming that a condominium association’s lien on a unit for unpaid assessments took priority over the mortgage.

 

So, yes, the priority of your construction lien is important and should always be a consideration in a lien foreclosure action.

 

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.