Free Florida Mechanics Lien Forms For Download

Notice to Owner / Notice to Contractor

All parties who do not contract directly with the property owner in Florida must deliver a preliminary notice within 45 days of first furnishing materials and/or labor to the project. When there isn’t a payment bond posted to the project, the notice is styled a “Notice to Owner.”  When a bond is posted, however, the notice is styled a “Notice to Contractor.”

The Notice to Contractor is always delivered to the general contractor.  The Notice to Owner, however, must be provided to the property owner and everyone “above the contracting chain” from you.  Since potential lien claimants may not know whether a bond has been placed, or the specifics about who is issuing the bond, Florida law allows you to request identification of the bond from the property owner or prime contractor.

Further, you can send a combined “Notice to Contractor / Notice to Owner” preliminary notice, which will protect both your lien rights and bond claim rights.  The free form provided here is such a combined Notice to Contractor / Notice to Owner.  It also contains a formal written request for identification of the bond.

Claim of Lien

When unpaid on a construction project in Florida, parties may file a mechanics lien against the real property, gaining a real security interest in the property itself equal to the value of the services, labor and/or materials furnished to the project.  Mechanic liens in Florida must be filed within 90 days of last furnishing labor and/or materials to a construction project.  More specific information about Florida’s mechanic lien laws can be found in the post on this blog: 5 Things To Know About Florida’s Mechanics Lien Law.

This particular form should be filled in, signed and notarized, and then filed with the Clerk of Court for the county where the project is located. While usually filing with the Clerk of Court is sufficient, some counties have a separate County Recorder department.  If this is the case, the lien should be filed in with the recorder and not the clerk.

Notice of Non-Payment

When a bond has been issued for the project, lien claimants are entitled to file a claim against the bond, and not the real property itself.  This claim must be delivered to the prime contractor and the surety company by certified mail, with return receipt requested.  It must be delivered within 90 days of last furnishing labor and/or materials to the construction project.  The “Notice of NonPayment,” while creating a formal notice upon the claim under the Florida Construction Lien Law, does not require recording with the clerk or recorder.

Notice of Contest

If your property is liened, and you don’t want to wait for an entire year to see whether the lienor intends to file a lien foreclosure action, in Florida you can serve a “Notice of Contest” upon the lienor.  Service of this notice shortens the lien effective period from one year to just 60 days, meaning the lienor will be required to file the lawsuit to foreclose the lien within the following 60 days or the mechanics lien will be rendered void.

This document must be signed and notarized, and served on the lienor by certified mail with return receipt requested.

Discharge of Lien

After receiving payment on a mechanics lien, or for other reasons, you’ll be required to discharge your mechanics lien from public records.  The lien discharge documentation should be filed in the same recorder or clerks’ office where the mechanics lien itself was recorded.  The document must be signed and notarized, and must actually reference details about the recorded lien within it.

The Value of Zlien’s Services

While forms are important and Zlien prides itself on having the most complete and accurate set forms, there is more to filing a mechanics lien or properly sending a  notice to owner than just filling out the form and sending it on its way.  We provide these forms to our readers free of charge, but that’s because we understand that the true value of Zlien’s service is more than just providing our clients with forms.

First, forms are fluid.  The forms we provide above are simple generic forms for Florida mechanic liens. However, depending on your role in the project and the work you’re performing, these lien forms may exclude certain fields, or may change slightly in one way or another.  Plus, you have to make a decision about which form is the right form for you to use. When you use the Lien Wizard, all of these nuances and variables are taken into consideration.

Second, there are a lot of steps in putting these documents together and getting them filed or delivered.  A service like Zlien that handles all of the logistics has a value that cannot be understated.  Take a look at this blog post for a more detailed explanation: Why You Shouldn’t Use Do-It-Yourself Mechanic Lien and Notice Forms.

When the Washington Supreme Court delivered its big mechanic’s lien opinion last week in Williams v. Athletics’ Field, I only had a few moments to report it here on the blog (Williams v. Athletics’ Field). However, this decision has significant consequences to mechanic lien jurisprudence in Washington state, and it deserves a blog post or two to explain what the Supreme Court had to say and how it should affect mechanic lien filings.

Summary of Case

If you’re a reader of the Construction Lien Blog, you know we’ve been following this case for more than a year now (read our posts: Williams v. Athletics’ Field tag).

In this case, the lien claimant filed a lien using a form that was provided by the Washington mechanic lien statute.  The lien statute says within it that a filing “using substantially the same form shall be valid.”  (§60.04.091) However, because of some other wording in the statute, lawyers challenging the lien argued that a separate “acknowledgment” of the lien claimant’s signature was required as an attachment to the statutory provided lien form.

While I think the argument is terrible, and a clear misreading of the statute’s plain language making the provided form acceptable per se, the trial court and the appeals court agreed with the party challenging the lien.  This was measurable seismic activity on mechanic lien jurisprudence in Washington state, jeopardizing the validity of thousands and thousands of liens in the state.

The Washington Supreme Court accepted review, and all was made right with the world again. But, the Washington Supreme Court did a lot more with its recent decision than just dismiss this acknowledgement argument. They set law on a growing division between the state’s appeal circuits over whether mechanic lien statutes should be liberally or strictly construed, and this could have far-reaching consequences.

The Liberal v. Strict Construction Divide in Washington

I don’t want to brag, but I saw this decision coming a mile away. While there was a lot of argument in the trial and circuit courts about the friction between §60.04.091′s acknowledgment requirements and the statutory provided form lacking an acknowledgment, what really mattered in deciding whether the lien was valid or invalid was whether courts were to require strict compliance with §60.04.091 or liberal compliance.

Earlier this year, I wrote about this saying:

Interestingly, the decision does a lot more than just address how a Washington mechanic’s lien must be signed and notarized. Instead, it addresses a big-picture difference between Division I and Division II of the Washington Courts of Appeals.

The bigger issue is whether lien laws must strictly or liberally construed by courts. Critizing the Williams v. Athletic Field decision and the underlying reasoning of the Division II court, Division I engaged in the debate about whether strict or liberal interpretation must be applied in lien disputes with the following:

“In the lien context…there is a strong statutory directive that “[the lien statutes]…be liberally construed to provide security for all parties intended to be protected by their provisions.” RCW 60.04.900. This directive clearly applies to RCW 60.04.091. See, e.g. Northlake Concrete Prods., Inc. v. Wylie, 34 Wn.App. 810, 818, 663 P.2d 1380 (1983) (explaining the Legislature’s intent that “the lien laws shall be liberally construed with the view to effecting their object” meant that “when it has been determined that persons come within the operation of the act it will be liberally applied to them” (quoting De Gooyer). N. Coast. Elect. Co. v. Ariz. Elec. Serv., 2010 Wash. App. LEXIS 914, fn4 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug 23 2010).”

The strict v. liberal rub is weird in Washington.  It seems obvious to me, in reading the case law, when liberal construction applies versus when strict construction applies. However, attorneys making confusing or disingenuous arguments combined with misapplication of jurisprudence by district and appeal court judges, created a long-lasting incorrect application of law that caused big problems to Washington lien claimants.

The problem arises because both strict and liberal construction of mechanic liens may be required depending on circumstances. If the court is determining whether a particular claimant falls into the class of parties who are protected by lien laws, strict construction should apply.  If the party is protected by lien laws, and the question is simply whether the lien is valid or meets statutory requirements, then liberal construction should apply.  The strict construction rule comes from jurisprudence (case law), and the liberal construction rule comes straight from statute (§60.040.900).

If you look at the law and jurisprudence, this diachodimy of construction is actually clear.  §60.040.900 requires the mechanic lien statutes to be “liberally construed to provide security for all parties intended to be protected by their provisions.”  Case law picks up on this, stating that to decide who is “intended to be protected” requires strict construction.  Seems simple, yes?

Somehow, however, case law confused the issue. The Supreme Court in Williams pointed to a 1997 Division II case as when mechanic lien jurisprudence went off track:

…more recent cases have expanded the rule of strict construction beyond identifying what services or property the mechanics’ lien statutes protect. In Lumberman’s of Washington, Inc. v. Barnhardt, 89 Wn. App. 283, 286 (1997), the Court of Appeals applied the rule of strict construction in determining whether a lien was valid where the claimant failed to sign a statement swearing it believed the claim of lien to be just.

Williams Decision Restores Liberal Construction

The Supreme Court in Williams recognizes that §60.040.900′s liberal construction has taken a back seat to strict construction since the 1997 Lumberman’s decision.  They drew a comparison between the pre-1997 jurisprudence and the post-1997 jurisprudence and held that the old ways of considering mechanic lien questions should prevail:

We agree with Hos [defendant in Williams] that the appropriate way to view the competing canons of strict and liberal construction is found in our early cases. The strict construction rule, at its origin, was invoked to determine whether persons or services came within the statute’s protection. Expanding the rule of strict construction beyond this inquiry effectively nullifies RCW 60.04.900. As Hos explains, “applying a ‘liberal construction’ to RCW 60.04.091 only after a valid lien is deemed to attach would make no sense. At that point — when by definition the claimant has a valid lien — nothing in RCW 60.04.091 would matter to the claimant.” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 3. To the extent Lumberman’s or other cases suggest that the statute’s mandate of liberal construction has been supplanted by a common law rule of strict construction, we disapprove them.

Conclusion – What Does This Mean?

As I see it, having the Supreme Court weigh in on this question was a long time coming. Practicing law in Washington, I can’t count the number of times opposing attorneys have relied on Lumberman’s to argue a lien was invalid. Defense attorneys loved the Lumberman’s precedent, but to me it always just seemed to be a wrong decision.  Now, the Supreme Court has addressed the discrepancy, and Lumberman’s is tossed.

This is a big deal for Washington lien claimants.  If you’re a party who is intended to be protected by the mechanic lien laws (contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, etc.)….then you’ll have just a bit more leeway in filing your mechanic lien claims.  If there is a small mistake in your lien claim, Washington courts should now look at that mistake liberally, allowing you to amend and fix it in most situations.

As lots of little mistakes can be made in filing a mechanic’s lien, this little bit of breathing room can be a huge difference maker.

I couldn’t believe how poor the forms were.

I’m confident in saying that filing a Rocket Lawyer lien is about as good as not filing a lien at all.  In a large majority of cases, the Rocket Lawyer lien form would be rejected by courts across the country because it simply does not meet statutory requirements.  Users should take great caution in using RocketLawyer to prepare mechanic liens.

Disclaimer – We Don’t Hate Rocket Lawyer

Let me go on record to say that I fully support the Rocket Lawyer concept. The American legal system is a hot mess right now, and access to quality legal assistance and counsel is non-existent. Companies like Avvo.com, Rocket Lawyer, and may I say it – Zlien – are all positive steps to bridge the gap between expensive, unhelpful lawyers, and the bottom line type of law assistance companies all over the country require.

Further, I don’t consider Rocket Lawyer direct competition to Zlien’s services.  Rocket Lawyer is a free legal document creation service.  You tell the website what type of document you want, answer a few questions, and Rocket Lawyer prepares the document based on your answers. You can print and use the document from there as you want.

This is unlike the Zlien service.

Zlien uses a similar method to prepare your mechanic’s lien and preliminary notices forms, but our service goes further by:

• Researching the legal property description
• Researching the property owner
• Calling the county recorder and getting the filing fees applicable
• Arranging for the filing of your document and paying all filing fees
• Arranging for the service of your lien upon applicable parties (i.e. the owner)
• Alerting you to deadlines when your lien is due / is expiring, etc.

There’s plenty of room in the marketplace for companies like Zlien and Rocket Lawyer to co-exist.  Sometimes, folks just need or want a form.  Other times, companies are looking for a turn-key service.  We’re the latter.

This, in other words, is not an article warning you about the dangers of using do-it-yourself forms when filing a mechanic’s lien.  This is specifically about using the Rocket Lawyer forms.

The problem with Rocket Lawyer is how astonishingly bad their mechanic’s lien form is.

Using Rocket Lawyer’s Mechanics Lien Form Is A Mistake

If you want to draft a mechanic’s lien form with Rocket Lawyer, you must go through the “Interview Process” for that particular form, which you can access here.  I went through this form to prepare mechanic liens in California, Washington and Louisiana, looking to compare the forms with one another.

Here is the first problem:  the forms were identical.

I don’t have time to go through all fifty states, but I’m pretty sure each state will use the same interview process to populate the exact same form.  Anyone who knows anything about mechanic’s lien laws and forms knows that this is a problem.  Each state is very particular (and very different) about what must be contained within its mechanic’s lien.  Some states require certain specific statutory langauge in a certain font size (i.e. California), other states require specific information not requested within the pithy Rocket Lawyer interview, and other states have very specific verification and/or notarization requirements.  (Oh, don’t forget about the special and alternate requirements based on your role / tier in the project).

All of these unique requirements are not accommodated by the short and generic Rocket Lawyer form.

As someone who deals with mechanic liens everyday, I can tell you with confidence that the Rocket Lawyer form would be rejected in California, Washington and Louisiana.

Here is the second problem:  the information it does request…sometimes isn’t needed, and sometimes isn’t allowed in the lien.

An example of unneeded information requested is the names and identities of folks below you (subs and suppliers) who you still owe money.  The Rocket Lawyer form lists these parties within the lien. This is very, very rarely required in a mechanic’s lien, and the inclusion of this information is superfluous.

A bigger problem is with information requested but not allowed in a lien – and that too happens within the Rocket Lawyer interview when it requests the interest percentage charged to your overdue account.  Sure, you are sometimes allowed to add interest to the amount due your company and include that charge within the lien amount.  However, that is not a universal rule.  There are many states that do not allow this, and it could be fatal to your lien.

The Bottom Line

Do-It-Yourself forms can be dangerous to use for a number of reasons, but they are a good fit for a lot of people and companies. By no means am I against do-it-yourself legal forms.

However, the do-it-yourself form must at least be correct. The Rocket Lawyer concept is unique and could be a great service to the public and the legal system, but it really misses the mark with its mechanic liens form. Using these forms to file a mechanics lien could be a very big mistake.

Our service can help your company by:

• Preparing and serving preliminary notices for your construction projects;
• Maintaining copies of served notices and liens on our secure servers, accessible to your company through a secure login;
• Preparing and filing construction liens, and serving copies of the lien upon the property owner and other interested parties;
• Guiding your company from Lien Notices to Lien Cancellations, to help your protect your rights and get paid. 
• Ensuring that your documents are prepared professionally and correctly, and filed with the proper authority.
  

We’re different from the competition because we do more than prepare forms – we do all of the filing and delivering work for you, and we keep everything available to your company so you never have to worry about proving that anything was filed or sent.

Zlien is so confident in our service that we provide California contractors with California lien forms completely free of charge. Click below to download any of the following forms in PDF format.

1. California Claim of Lien Form (mechanics lien form)
2. California Preliminary Notice Form