This
Florida lawyer has written legal forms, books & articles for West, ALI-ABA
& Fla. Bar Journal and is rated AV by Martindale-Hubbell. James W. Martin
consults from his Saint Petersburg, Tampa Bay, Florida, law office on
contract, business, corporate, probate, wills, trusts, real estate and
lawsuit matters.
LEGISLATURE LIMITS HOMEOWNERS' RIGHTS TO SUE
CONTRACTORS
Copyright (c) 2003 by James W. Martin, P.A. All rights reserved.
Published in The Florida Bar News, June 1, 2003
Note: This article is for background purposes only and is not intended as
legal advice. It is not based on the current law. The 2003 law was
codified as Florida Statutes Sections 558.001 - 558.005. The law was amended
thereafter. Effective 10/1/06 it was extended beyond residential property
to also apply to other real property with improvements. This article was
written before the 2004 and subsequent laws took effect and has not been updated
to reflect the new laws.
In the closing days of the 2003 session, the Florida Legislature
adopted Senate Law 1286 to require homeowners to give contractors 60 days
written notice before filing a lawsuit for construction defects. Governor Bush
signed it into law effective May 27, 2003, as Chapter 2003-49, Laws of Florida.
It says it applies to all homeowner construction defect claims accruing after
that date, even if the contract was entered into before then.
The legislative staff report says the law "creates a process to give
homeowners...the opportunity to settle legal claims related to construction
defects...before a lawsuit is filed." It applies to new construction as well as
remodeling. It only applies to dwellings.
It is apparent from reading the law's process that it favors the construction
industry in many ways:
1. The homeowner cannot file suit for damages until first giving the contractor
60 days written notice specifying the defects. The homeowner is supposed to send
the notice within 15 days after discovering the defect.
2. The contractor then has 5 days to inspect the home, but it is not required
to. The homeowner must give access during normal working hours, apparently even
if the remodeling work was done at night and weekends for the homeowners
convenience.
3. After that the contractor has another 5 days to notify subcontractors and
suppliers of defects it thinks they are responsible for, and each of them has 5
days to inspect the home, again during normal working hours.
4. The contractor is given 25 days after receipt of notice of defects to respond
to the homeowner in one of 3 ways: (a) the contractor may offer to "remedy" the
defect at no cost to the homeowner, or (b) the contractor may offer to
"compromise and settle" the claim by monetary payment within 30 days, or (c) the
contractor may dispute the claim.
5. All of the above is an arguably fair process, but here is where it tips to
favor the contractor: the homeowner is given 15 days to reject the contractor's
offer, otherwise it is deemed accepted. The only method of rejection is to
return the offer to the contractor with the word "rejected" printed on it. Thus,
mere inaction by the homeowner results in acceptance of the contractor's offer.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. The law is filled with ambiguities and
inconsistencies. It precludes filing suit for damages, but not for specific
performance. So, in theory, if the defect is of an emergency nature and if the
only contractor who could repair it is the contractor to be sued, then the
homeowner could sue for specific performance without going through the pre-suit
notice procedure. The problem with this is that the homeowner's claim for
damages may be waived by doing so. And the homeowner could not sue for both
damages and specific performance and just abate the damages portion because the
law specifically abates the "action" which is the entire suit.
The law even requires pre-suit notice before arbitration, and it even controls
over arbitration provisions in contracts. Therefore, even if the parties planned
their own alternative dispute resolution mechanism by contract, this law would
take that contracted right away and require the homeowner to follow the pre-suit
claims process before seeking arbitration.
There are a few words in the law that broaden its reach beyond the usual
construction situation. For example, the law includes in its definition of
"contractor" anyone that is engaged in the business of selling dwellings or
attachments thereto. This is a very broad definition. It could include someone
who buys and sells houses and does not live in them. It could include someone
who sells interior decorations that are attached to houses.
Any suggestion that this law creates a process for homeowners to settle claims
prior to litigation without the need to hire a lawyer is misleading. From now
on, every homeowner who has a construction defect MUST hire a lawyer to take
them through the pre-suit claims process.
The legislative staff report notes that the law's process is similar to the
pre-suit screening process for medical malpractice actions. It is unlikely that
any patient has ever pursued that process without a lawyer.
The law can be read online as a PDF file at
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/03laws/ch_2003-049.pdf Only one senator
voted against it.
Links Appendix
Law (PDF):
Chapter 2003-49, Laws of Florida (2003)
Bill:
2003 Senate Bill 1286ER
Report (PDF):
Staff report #1
Report (PDF):
Staff report #2
Vote history:
Senate vote history
News reports:
St. Petersburg Times article 6/21/03, Homes section, page 1 |