Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court
June 17, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogWell, it finally made it. The most important Washington lien case of recent memory was argued in front of the Washington Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 14, 2011. So, what should we all expect?
As I was reading through my RSS feeds this afternoon ? I was stopped dead in my tracks. Williams v . Athletic Field, the Division II case that has been a frequent topic here on Builders Counsel, has finally been argued before the Supreme Court. All of you who have been anxiously awaiting this day, you can check out the Supreme Court submissions by following this link.
The Williams case has been the center of attention for construction lawyers and construction organizations over the past year. Some have called for complete lien law reform, others have tried to patch a hole in the law. Now, we can expect a ruling from the highest court in the state. That ruling will have a major impact on whether the Legislature feels compelled to change lien law.
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
The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction
December 20, 2021 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogLast year, I posted regarding the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Woodbridge II, which concluded that the “adverse use” element for prescriptive easement claims only requires the claimant to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2. Thus, Woodbridge II concluded, the claimants acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. Id. That decision was up for review by the Colorado Supreme Court at the time of my prior post. It has now been affirmed, thereby settling an arguable appellate decision split created by Woodbridge II. See Lo Viento Blanco, LLC v. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2021 CO 56 (“Woodbridge”).
“Like the division below, and for much the same reasons,” the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed in Woodbridge “that under Colorado law, a claimant’s acknowledgement or recognition of the owner’s title during the claimant’s asserted prescriptive period does not interrupt the prescriptive use or undermine the claimant’s adverse use.” Woodbridge, ¶ 2. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Gabriel’s opinion agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning “that although Woodbridge recognized that it did not hold title, no evidence indicated that it had acted in subordination to the owner’s title.” Id. ¶ at 13. The Court further agreed with Woodbridge II’srejection of Lo Viento’s “permissive use” argument because “the permission offered … was conditional and Woodbridge never agreed to any of the conditions set forth therein.” Id. On that basis, Woodbridge confirmed that “a claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement need not show that it asserted exclusive ownership of the property during the prescriptive period,” but only “that its use was without permission or otherwise unauthorized and that it interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Id. at ¶ 23.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Job Growth Seen as Good News for North Carolina Housing Market
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFDavid Mayo, the president of the Home Builders Association of Hendersonville told housing professionals that “it’s been a tough few years, but by all accounts it’s better now.” Currently, Henderson County, North Carolina is seeing three new jobs created for every building permit issued, which is seen as the critical measure of a region’s economic health, according to Dale Akins, a market research firm.
Henderson County has seen a rise in building permits, with 32% more permits issued in the first nine months of 2013 than in the same period of 2012. By contrast, adjacent Transylvania County has seen little job growth and a housing market that has shrunk by 25%.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AI-Powered Construction Optioneering Today
April 08, 2024 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessIn this episode of the AEC Business Podcast, Aarni Heiskanen interviews René Morkos, the founder and CEO of ALICE Technologies. They discuss construction tech, AI, and ALICE Core, the company’s latest product launch.
How the Construction Technology Landscape has Changed
The construction tech industry has evolved significantly since 2015, as discussed with René.
In 2015, there was a lack of understanding and reluctance toward construction tech, with some investors even hesitant to invest in the sector. However, by 2017-2018, there was a noticeable shift as construction tech became a sought-after investment opportunity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SFAA and Coalition of Partners Encourage Lawmakers to Require Essential Surety Bonding Protections on All Federally-Financed Projects Receiving WIFIA Funds
February 21, 2022 —
The Surety & Fidelity Association of AmericaFebruary 17, 2022 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) in collaboration with 15 trade associations, sent a letter strongly encouraging members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, led by Chairman Tom Carper (D-DE) and Ranking Member Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), to require payment and performance protections on federally-financed infrastructure projects receiving Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loans, including public-private projects (P3s).
“As the Environment and Public Works Committee looks at legislation in the second session of the 117th Congress to continue the important work of addressing our nation’s water infrastructure, we urge the Committee to amend the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to help protect taxpayer funds, workers, subcontractors and suppliers, including Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program participants and subcontractors, who build water infrastructure especially in at-risk low income communities,” said Lee Covington, president and CEO, SFAA.
The coalition of partners includes:
American Property and Casualty Association
American Subcontractor Association
Business Coalition for Fair Competition
Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers
Finishing Contractors Association International
International Union of Operating Engineers
Mechanical Contractors Association of America
National Association of Electrical Contractor
National Association of Minority Contractors
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
National Association of Surety Bond Producers
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association
The Association of Union Constructors
The Construction Employers of America
Women Construction Owners and Executives
The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry. Based in Washington, D.C., SFAA works to promote the value of surety and fidelity bonding by proactively advocating on behalf of its members and stakeholders. The association’s more than 450 member companies write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. For more information visit www.surety.org.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newark Trial Team Secures Affirmance of ‘No Cause’ Verdict for Nationwide Housing Manager & Developer
January 07, 2025 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomNewark, N.J. (December 30, 2024) - Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett recently obtained a ruling by a New Jersey Appellate Division panel affirming a unanimous "no cause" defense verdict obtained on behalf of a nationwide housing developer and manager.
In this case, the plaintiff and her two minor children brought suit against the firm's client. They appealed a unanimous no-cause jury verdict rendered in May 2023 that found the defendants not liable for mold exposure in their apartment. The plaintiffs argued that several trial errors, including improper jury instructions, a confusing verdict sheet, and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel led to an unjust result. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in handling the case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
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
