Winning a bid for a renovation or a new build here in the Miami area can be exciting. The prospect of building or maintaining the company’s reputation and working hard to make a profit could give owners a new reason to look forward to the workday. That is, until it comes time for a payment that does not come. Some contractors may be tempted to stop work until payment is made, but doing so wrongfully could end up leading to construction litigation.

In order to help ensure that does not happen, Miami contractors may want to include a provision in their construction contracts, addressing non-payment. Other than having the ability to file mechanic’s or construction liens, companies may also want to have the option of stopping work when they do not receive scheduled payments. If such terms are not included in the contract, or even if they are, using this option could prove problematic.

Contractors must proceed with caution when using a work stoppage when payments are not forthcoming. First, if the requirements outlined in the contract are not followed, it could constitute a breach of contract. Second, it may work best to start off by documenting the situation and the efforts made to receive payment, such as phone calls, emails, demand letters and more. These types of efforts may be worthwhile before stopping work in order to make sure there is a paper trail that justifies it.

Any company wanting to add this type of collection option to its construction contracts or contemplating stopping work would definitely benefit from discussing the situation with an experienced attorney first. A contractor may consider this a simple collection method, but in reality, it is part of the steps that could lead to construction litigation. It would obviously be better to be on the right side of a work stoppage, so understanding the pros, cons and risks of such a move beforehand could save on time, money and effort in the end.

Commercial real estate developers in Florida and elsewhere can sometimes find themselves in a difficult position when residents of an area oppose construction. Though the developer may try to continue with the project as intended, some parties may try to take action in hopes of delaying or stopping a project altogether. Often, this type of scenario leads to construction litigation.

Threats of a lawsuit have recently occurred in another state over the construction of a Dollar General store. Reports stated that members of the community believe that the developer, the state’s Department of Environmental Quality and the county have disregarded federal law that protects an endangered species in the area. Apparently, the construction could harm the population of Appalachian Elktoe mussels.

Approximately 50 protesters lined the roadway in front of the construction site to express their displeasure. The report indicated that the opponents have hired an attorney to file a letter of intent to sue over the matter. Construction can continue until an official lawsuit is filed, and all parties have two months to respond to the letter of intent, during which time construction could be completed.

Threats of construction litigation can certainly be troublesome to developers. However, it is a possibility that many in the construction industry face. In the event that Florida construction company owners and developers do have to contend with this type of ordeal, they will certainly want to understand their legal options. Speaking with experienced attorneys about responding to a letter of intent to sue and what litigation could entail may prove helpful to concerned parties.

With any business, it is important to get paid. Business owners and operators need the funds provided by clients and customers in order to keep their doors open. As a result, when a construction company does not receive payment for services, it can cause major hindrances. In some cases, it may be necessary to move forward with construction litigation if a client does not pay.

Florida readers may be interested in such a case currently underway in another area. According to reports, a construction company has filed suit against a university after completing a housing project for the university. Though the company was a subcontractor involved in the project, it desired direct contact with the university and other parties involved in the project.

The company completed the changes to the doors, windows and cabinets as requested and sent an invoice to the university for $542,684. The report did not mention when the company completed its portion of the project, but it had not yet received payment for those services or the retainage funds. As a result, the company has filed suit against the university, which did not provide a comment for the report.

It can be frustrating for companies to have to essentially hunt down payment for projects that they complete. As this case shows, that hunting may not always go well, and it can take additional action to work toward obtaining funds owed to the company. Construction litigation may be necessary if Florida companies are facing issues of nonpayment for completed projects or other services, and understanding their legal options may be vital to such scenarios.