Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered
July 13, 2017 —
Bob Henry - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogClearing up any lingering confusion, in Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. Woods, 767 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4 (June 22, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed that residential forcible entry and detainer actions in Arizona accrue for statute of limitations purposes when a party entitled to possession makes a formal demand for return of possession not when the party could have made a demand for return of possession.
In Carrington, the borrowers (the Woodses) remained in property that they had acquired in 2008 but then lost to foreclosure several years later. The original lender obtained title to the property at a trustee’s sale on February 16, 2010, but did not take any action to remove the Woodses at that time. Title to the property was then transferred through a series of transactions over the next six years. Ultimately, Carrington acquired the title and, in 2016, sent a formal “Notice to Vacate” the premises to the Woodses. After the Woodses failed to timely vacate pursuant to the demand, Carrington initiated an FED action to evict them from the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bob Henry, Snell & WilmerMr. Henry may be contacted at
bhenry@swlaw.com
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction
July 28, 2016 —
Alisa Zevin - Engineering News-RecordThe 80-year-old Bow Tie Building in the heart of New York City’s Times Square is undergoing a major renovation of retail space, but the tens of thousands of daily passersby will not see any construction activities: A 53-ft-tall dark-green plywood wall completely hides the 167,000-sq-ft structure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alisa Zevin, Engineering News-RecordMs. Zevin may be contacted at
zevina@enr.com
Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor
July 21, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogIt’s been over 1 year since we last visited the CertainTeed Corp. v. Seattle Roof Brokers lawsuit. After my original post, the contractor, James Garcia, appeared at Builders Counsel in a comment to defend himself. It appears that 1 year later, the court decided to side with CertainTeed and award them significant attorneys’ fees. Ready for the whole story? Its a pricey one.
Back in July 2010, good friend Mike Atkins (Seattle Trademark Attorney) authored a post about a Seattle roofing contractor who had been sued for false advertising on his website. The lawsuit was raised by CertainTeed, a roofing material producer, whose products were the target of a Seattle contractor’s ire. Seattle Roof Brokers, owned by James Garcia, published content on its website, remarking that CertainTeed products have a history of “premature failure” and that they “will fail?.resale inspection after 15-20 years.”
CertainTeed filed its action to obtain an injunction and damages under the Consumer Protection Act.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada Judge says Class Analysis Not Needed in Construction Defect Case
October 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the National Law Journal, “The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled it neither arbitrary nor capricious for a trial judge to decline to perform a class-action analysis in a lawsuit filed by a homeowners’ association against a general contractor over alleged defects.”
Justice Michael Douglas stated, as quoted by the National Law Journal, “The district court was not required to conduct that analysis at this point in the litigation because nothing in the record indicates that the association sought to proceed as a class action.”
The general contractor argued that the construction defect law did “not apply because the development’s units were no longer new residences once they were rented as apartments.” However, the justices declared “that the association can pursue its lawsuit for construction defects in common elements owned by multiple units as long as one unit is a new residence.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?
February 07, 2022 —
Christopher D. Cazenave - ConsensusDocsA construction contract typically contains many different types of warranties. Owners expect contractors to explicitly warrant their workmanship, contractor-provided materials and equipment, and in many instances to assume other warranty risks that may obligate the contractor years after the project is completed.
No contractor wants to be surprised years after a project is completed by the existence of warranty obligations that were not considered or negotiated at the outset of the project. To help avoid this situation, warranties should be treated similar to other critical risk-sharing provisions in the contract in concert with other bargained-for provisions, including for example price and schedule.
This article provides a brief overview of warranty obligations found in typical construction contracts followed by a few practical considerations for contractors to consider when negotiating warranty obligations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher D. Cazenave, Jones Walker, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Cazenave may be contacted at ccazenave@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit
July 30, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are a contractor in DIRECT CONTRACT with an owner, serve a contractor final payment affidavit on the owner, as a matter of course, and without any undue delay, particularly if you are owed money and have recorded a construction lien. In numerous circumstances, I like to serve the contractor final payment affidavit with the construction lien.
The contractor final payment affidavit is not a meaningless form. It is a statutory form (set forth in Florida Statute s. 713.06) required to be filled out by a lienor in direct privity of contract with an owner and served on the owner at least 5 days prior to the lienor foreclosing its construction lien. The contractor final payment affidavit serves as a condition precedent to foreclosing a construction lien. Failure to timely serve a contractor final payment affidavit should result in a dismissal of the lien foreclosure lawsuit, presumably by the owner moving for a motion for summary judgment. This should not occur.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation
March 28, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRecently, the Virginia General Assembly closed its session having passed legislation essentially banning “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts, both public and private. Assuming that Governor Youngkin signs the bill into law on or before his deadline of April 11, 2022, the following new requirement will be grafted into any Virginia construction contract:
Such contract shall require such higher-tier contractor to pay such lower-tier subcontractor within the earlier of (i) 45 days of the satisfactory completion of the portion of the work for which the subcontractor has invoiced or (ii) seven days after receipt of amounts paid by the owner to the general contractor or by the higher-tier contractor to the lower-tier contractor for work performed by a subcontractor pursuant to the terms of the contract.
This is the main operative language (the 45-day payment requirement is also applied to project owners), but the legislation also imposes certain other notice duties upon both the owner and any higher-tier contractor on a construction project. Interestingly, the legislation does not include a provision making it only effective for those contracts entered into after its effective date. More on that later.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
