Penalty for Failure to Release Expired Liens
April 02, 2024 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupI was recently contacted by a commercial building owner in the process of trying to sell his building. Two years prior to this, a subcontractor had recorded a mechanics’ lien with the local County Recorder’s office in relation to the owner’s property. The subcontractor recorded the mechanics lien after the subcontractor was not paid by a prime contractor for work the subcontractor had performed on the property. Unfortunately, the subcontractor then failed to file a lawsuit to foreclose on the lien within the requisite ninety (90) day time period for filing a lawsuit to foreclose on the mechanics’ lien. Since the subcontractor missed this 90 day deadline to file the mechanics lien foreclosure lawsuit, the mechanics lien expired and became unenforceable.
Subject to certain exceptions, under California Civil Code Section 8460, a lawsuit to foreclose on a mechanics lien must be filed within ninety (90) days after the mechanics lien is recorded or the mechanics lien expires. Although the mechanics lien had expired, the title company and intended purchaser of the building and property were perhaps understandably insistent that the mechanics lien constituted a cloud on title to the property and must be removed from the official records for the property. The prospective purchaser would not buy the property unless the mechanics’ lien was removed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders
January 23, 2023 —
Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & SleightOn October 27, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a decision which could have a substantial impact on the enforceability of contract clauses that require litigation to be commenced within a stated period of time from project completion. In Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.,the Supreme Court held that the contractual one-year statute of limitations for bringing claims against the contractor was substantively unconscionable and reversed the Court of Appeals.
In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract included a one-year claim limitations clause that required claims to be raised within a one year period from project completion and that any claims not raised during the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls.
The Tadychs moved into the home on April 8, 2014, and the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development conducted its final site inspection on April 15 and approved the residence for occupancy on April 23. In January or February of 2015, the Tadychs began to notice a shift in their home. In February of 2015, the Tadychs engaged the Construction Dispute Resolution (CDR) to review NRC’s work. CDR raised concerns about the adequacy of the home’s construction and prepared a written report in March 2015 indicating several deviations from the architectural plans and building codes. The Tadychs sent this report to NRC, who assured the Tadychs that NRC’s work followed all requirements and rejected any claims that there were deviations from the plans. The Tadychs continued to notice issues with the home through October 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Ingram may be contacted at
cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com
Apartment Investors Turn to Suburbs After Crowding Cities
March 12, 2015 —
Nadja Brandt and Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Real estate investor Robert Hart pulled into the lot of a 400-unit apartment community in a San Diego suburb last month, prepared to pay up for the recently completed project on a quiet residential street. A competitor from a publicly traded landlord was already there, he said.
“It was on the one hand reassuring to know that we were both chasing the same opportunity,” said Hart, president and chief executive officer of closely held TruAmerica Multifamily. “On the other hand, it reinforced my opinion that large institutional real estate investors will be chasing yield far beyond the urban core.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg and
Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net
Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Denies Insured's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking to Compel Appraisal
March 13, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insured's motion to dismiss after the insurer filed suit to compel an appraisal. Allied Trust Ins. Co. v. Tsang, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 352 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2023).
The insureds reported damage to their property arising from Hurricane Ida. The insurer, Allied Trust, investigated and determined that the covered damage was $1,978.18, which was less that the policy's deductible. The insureds estimated that the covered damage was $135,270.78.
Allied Trust invoked the appraisal provision. Allied Trust later filed suit alleging the insureds failed to comply and participate in the appraisal. The insureds moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. In their motion, the insureds argued that because they were now complying with the appraisal clause, all relief sought by Allied Trust had either already occurred or was currently underway.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Unravel the Facts Before Asserting FDUTPA and Tortious Interference Claims
September 05, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesCMR Construction and Roofing, LLC v. UCMS, LLC, 2022 WL 3012298 (11th Cir. 2022) is an interesting opinion where a contractor asserted a Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (known by its acronym “FDUTPA”) claim and tortious interference claims (with a contract and with an advantageous business relationship) against another contractor, i.e., a competitor, that were dismissed from the get-go. It is an opinion worthy of interest based on the claims asserted against a competitor. Throwing around FDUTPA and tortious interference may sound good from an intimidation standpoint, but pleading and then proving these claims are a lot different than loosely throwing around these claims. Before filing a lawsuit for FDUTPA and tortious interference, spend time unraveling the facts and the chronology. Do not rely on conclusory allegations simply to check the box regarding required elements to plead while ignoring the actual facts that support the allegations. These are fact-based claims and it is imperative the facts are fully known from on the onset so that they can be strategically pled and pursued.
In this matter, a contractor, the plaintiff, was hired by a condominium association around April 2018 to repair damage caused by a hurricane which included roofing work. The association was going to have its insurer pay its contractor. In May 2020, the association hired a new contractor to perform the same work (the “new contractor”). The association then directed the plaintiff to cease work since it hired the new contractor.
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
Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties
June 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFNate Budde on the Construction Payment Blog, discussed the potential of mechanics liens, and the pitfalls that occur when not all necessary parties are named. Budde analyzed the case Johnson Controls Inc. v. Norair Eng’g Corp. that involved a “claimant’s failure to name all the necessary parties in his claim against a bond,” resulting “in the claimant losing his claim against the bond, and with it, an opportunity to get paid.”
Budde concluded, “Unfortunately, as was the case here, when the bond claim is not handled correctly procedurally, a party can be left with no recourse for payment. It’s important to understand which of the parties involved should be named in both mechanics lien claims and bond claims.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old
May 31, 2021 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordThe Arkansas Dept. of Transportation (ARDOT) has terminated the employee responsible for inspecting the Interstate-40 Mississippi River bridge after two-year-old drone footage revealed the presence of a tie-beam fracture that forced
last week’s emergency shutdown.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
