The Palms v. MAGIL CONST. FLORIDA, INC., 3D00-3132.
| Decision Date | 18 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D00-3132.,3D00-3132. |
| Citation | 785 So.2d 597 |
| Parties | THE PALMS, 2100 Ocean Blvd., Ltd., and Plaza Properties Group, Inc., Appellants, v. MAGIL CONSTRUCTION FLORIDA, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Michael A. Hornreich and Elliot H. Scherker and Brenda K. Supple, Miami, for appellants.
Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza & Guedes, P.A. and Joseph H, Serota and Joseph Serota, Miami; Robert D. Hertzberg, Miami, for appellee.
Before COPE, FLETCHER and SORONDO, JJ.
The question before us is whether the 2000 amendment to section 489.128, Florida Statutes, is retroactive. We conclude that it is not.
In April 1997 the appellant owner entered into a construction contract with the appellee contractor. At that time, the relevant version of section 489.128, Florida Statutes, provided:
Contracts performed by unlicensed contractors unenforceable.—As a matter of public policy, contracts entered into on or after October 1, 1990, and performed in full or in part by any contractor who fails to obtain or maintain his license in accordance with this part shall be unenforceable in law or in equity. However, in the event the contractor obtains or reinstates his license, the provisions of this section shall no longer apply.
§ 489.128, Fla.Stat. (1995).
The appellee contractor applied for licensure prior to executing the construction contract. Owing to a processing error, or insufficient filing fee, no license was issued.
The owner terminated the construction contract and the contractor brought suit. While the suit was pending, the legislature amended the statute to delete the second sentence of the above-quoted statute. Ch.2000-372, § 35, Laws of Fla.
The owner contends that the effect of the 2000 amendment is to eliminate a contractor's right to cure its unlicensed status. The owner argues that since the contractor never cured its unlicensed status, it is now prohibited from doing so. The owner says that the contractor is now barred from seeking any relief in its action for breach of contract.
Based on this analysis, the owner moved to stay the parties' pending arbitration. The trial court denied the motion and the owner has appealed.
For present purposes we assume, without deciding, that the owner's analysis of the amended statute is correct. We therefore assume that the amended statute precludes a contractor from curing its unlicensed status. So...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RAM OF SO. FL., INC. v. WCI Communities, Inc.
...by the 1999 version of the statute to cure its unlicensed status. In support of its position, R.A.M. relies on Palms v. Magil Construction, Inc., 785 So.2d 597, 598 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 805 So.2d 811 (Fla.2001), which held that "the 2000 amendment" to section 489.128 "does not oper......
-
Mivan (Fla.), Inc. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 5D02-1788.
...statute, since the amendment constitutes a substantive change of the law, not to be applied retroactively."); The Palms v. Magil Constr. Fla., Inc., 785 So.2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA),review denied sub. nom., The Palms, 2100 Ocean Blvd., Ltd. v. Magil Constr. Fla., Inc., 805 So.2d 811 The evidence......
-
Michnal v. Palm Coast Development, Inc.
...counsel; (2) whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way; and (3) whether any of the factors set forth in Fla. Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985) are applicable, especially, the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type o......
-
Kvaerner Const., Inc. v. AMERICAN SAFETY CASUALTY INS. CO., 5D02-1765.
...section 489.128 to delete the last sentence, which allowed a contractor to cure its unlicenced status. The Palms v. Magil Construction Florida, Inc., 785 So.2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 805 So.2d 811 4. "Equally at fault." Black's Law Dictionary. 5. See, e.g., American Home Assur. Co.......
-
The impact of unlicensed contractor activities.
...of the 2000 statutory amendment eliminating a contractor's right to "cure." In The Palms v. Magil Construction of Florida, Inc., 785 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the court held that the 2000 amendment to [section]489.128 removing the "cure" provision did not apply to a suit pending on the......