Stock Building Supply of Florida, Inc. v. Soares Da Costa Construction Services, LLC

In my judgment(a) no notice to contractor was even required in the circumstances under section 713.23(l)(c), because the lienor and the contractor, in every real sense, shared a “common identity” and were therefore in “privity” with each other. See Aetna Cas. And Sur. Co. v. Buck, 594 So.2d 280 (Fla.1992);(b) assuming otherwise, both the “first” September 12, 2005 preliminary notice and(c) the March 28, 2006, “second” notice, although it was not necessary, satisfied any such requirement.

With respect, I believe the Court’s analysis to the contrary embodies a super technical approach to the…