office, be it the actual lease, a short form of the lease, or the notice as prescribed in section 713.10(2), must contain a provision expressly prohibiting such liability. As such, we find no merit in appellant’s first argument. In its second issue on appeal, appellant contends that its interest cannot be subject to the liens at issue because neither the Lease nor the Amendment required Montgomery Ward’s desired impr 55) (noting that the court had previously construed section 84.03(2) to make the lessor’s interest in the leased property liable for any construction work done by a lessee “only if the lease agreement required the lessee to make the alterations or to effect the improvements involved”); Miracle Ctr. Dev. Corp. v. M.A.D. Constr., Inc., 662 So.2d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>); Van D. Costas, Inc. v. Rosenberg, 432 So.2d
holding that the lease pro vision granting the lessee the option of constructing improvements did not make the construction the pith of the lease holding that the lessors interest in the leased property was subject to liens because it was perfectly obvious that the parties knew that the improvements at issue were the pith of the lease and that except for them the lease would not have been executed and because the improvements were essential to the purpose of the lease holding that a lessors interest can only be subject to liens arising from improvements performed on the leased property if the lease required the improvements or if under judicial interpretation the improvements were the pith of the lease holding that the mere fact that the parties to a lease may contemplate that the lessee will make improvements to the property is insufficient to subject the lessors interests to mechanics liens and that the lease must instead expressly or impliedly require the requirements to be made holding that the lease at issue which set forth that the tenant may at its own expense make alterations and improvements did not require the lessee to make the improvements and that the alterations and improvements did not constitute the pith of the lease