Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

January 18, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a party breaches an agreement, particularly when dealing with real estate, there is an equitable remedy known as specific performance that requests the trial judge issue an order to affirmatively force the breaching party to perform, i.e., close on the real estate contract. You are asking the court to require the other party to specifically perform an affirmative obligation. See Melbourne Ocean Club Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Elledge, 71 So.3d 144, 146 (Fla. 2011).

A decree of specific performance is an equitable remedy ‘not granted as a matter of right or grace but as a matter of sound judicial discretion’ governed by legal and equitable principles. Specific performance shall only be granted when 1) the plaintiff is clearly entitled to it, 2) there is no adequate remedy at law, and 3) the judge believes that justice requires it. Castigliano v. O’Connor, 911 So.2d 145, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (internal citations omitted).

An example of specific performance may play out, as mentioned, in a real estate contract where a seller refuses to close on the transaction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws

May 18, 2020 — Colton Addy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Applicability of California’s Rent Control Laws: California Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 took effect on January 1, 2020, and implement statewide rent control in California for most residential properties. The rent control laws, however, do not apply to a rental property that was issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(4), 1946.2(e)(7)). The statutes also do not apply to most single-family residences, provided that (a) the owner is not a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or a limited liability company where one of the members is a corporation, and (b) the required statutory language is included in the lease agreement for tenancies commencing or renewing on or after July 1, 2020. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(5), 1946.2(e)(8)). Annual Increases Permitted Under California’s Rent Control Laws: Commencing on January 1, 2020, unless otherwise permitted by California law, a Landlord cannot increase the gross rental rate for a rental unit over a continuous 12-month period more than the change in the regional cost of living index where the property is located plus 5%, and gross rental rate increases are subject to a maximum cap of 10% over a continuous 12-month period regardless of the change in the cost of living index. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(1)). The gross rental rate is determined using the lowest rental amount charged in any month in the immediately preceding 12 months. (Id.) Any incentives, discounts, concessions, or credits are not taken into account. (Id.) Even if a rent increase does not exceed the amount permitted under the statute, a Landlord is prohibited from increasing rent more than twice in any continuous 12-month period. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(2)). Retroactive Applicability of Restrictions on Rent Increases: Although the statute took effect on January 1, 2020, the statute retroactively applies to all rent increases that occurred on or after March 15, 2019. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(1)). If a landlord increased the rent amount more than the amount permitted under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1) after March 15, 2019, and prior to January 1, 2020, the rent amount on January 1, 2020, is reduced to the amount of the rent on March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1). (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(2)). The Landlord does not have to refund the tenant any rent payments that were in excess of the permissible rent increase that the tenant made prior to January 1, 2020. (Id.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Colton Addy, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Addy may be contacted at caddy@swlaw.com

Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

January 28, 2019 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Strategist
In Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that the appropriate test for admissibility of an expert opinion about new or novel scientific evidence is the “Frye” test, not the “Daubert” test. As result of developing mesothelioma, Richard Delisle sued sixteen defendants, including Crane Company (Crane) and R.J. Reynolds, claiming that each exposed him to asbestos, which is a leading cause of mesothelioma. At trial, Crane and R.J. Reynolds sought to preclude the expert opinions of Mr. Delisle’s causation experts. The trial denied the motions and the jury awarded Mr. Delisle $8 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

April 13, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Governments throughout the world have issued “shelter in place” orders requiring that residents stay at home except for “essential” purposes. As a result, in the United States, more than a third of Americans have been ordered to stay at home. This, in turn, has had a direct impact on construction projects which have slowed or have been temporarily shuttered altogether, and it will (not may) have an impact on the flow of project funds. So what can project owners and contractors do? We’ve got a few tips. 1. Read Your Contract, Paying Particular Attention to Force Majeure, No Damages for Delay and Notice Provisions For the most part, with the exception of statutory rights and remedies which we will discuss below, your contract spells out your rights and remedies should the proverbial “S” hit the fan. It is, in other words, the rules you agreed to, and you should know what those rules provide. Three provisions you should look for, and if they’re in your contract, you should review carefully are: (1) Force majeure provisions; (2) No damages for delay provisions; and (3) notice provisions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

July 08, 2019 — Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
As federal contractors may be aware, the general rule when performing a contract for the federal government is that only the contracting officer (“CO”) can bind the government. Often, the CO delegates responsibility to a contracting officer’s representative (“COR”). While in some cases a COR may be able to bind the federal government, the contract may limit that ability exclusively to the CO. Important for our clients, it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine whether the COR can legally bind the federal government when ordering changes to the scope of work. [1] This is true even when a COR possesses apparent authority to order changes to the work, and when the project is almost exclusively overseen by COR’s. [2] A recent case highlights the dangers of a contractor relying on the orders of a COR when performing work outside the scope of a contract. In Baistar Mechanical Inc., a contractor was awarded a maintenance and snow removal contract with the federal government. The contract expressly stated that only the CO had contracting authority regarding additional or changed work. [3] However, Baistar, the contractor, argued it was directed by the contracting officer’s representatives to perform work outside of the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
A Virginia court sent charges of construction fraud against a Kansas man to a grand jury. Larry Foster visited homes in Bedford County, Virginia, tested the water, and told homeowners that they needed new water filtration systems. The homeowners paid, but Mr. Foster never delivered. One homeowner who testified paid him $1,690. Another paid even more, giving $3,090 to Mr. Foster. In order to dupe his victims, Foster used the address of a chiropractor as a business address, unbeknownst to the actual business there.. He is wanted for charges in other states as well. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

October 19, 2017 — Michael C. Zisa & Susan Elliott – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Two recent decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Federal Claims highlight that sureties and bond producers are not immune to the potentially severe consequences of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and related federal fraud statutes. In each case, the Court determined that sureties and bond producers can face potential liability under these fraud statutes for direct and indirect submission of false claims to the federal government. Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What a Difference a Day Makes: Mississippi’s Discovery Rule

November 16, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
The discovery rule applies to latent injuries, such that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows of or should have known of the injury. In Western World Ins. Group v. KC Welding, LLC, No. 2022-CA-00527-SCT, 2023 Miss. LEXIS 278 (KC Welding), a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court of Mississippi (Supreme Court) affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Western World Insurance Group (Insurer) filed its lawsuit one day late. Thus, the statute of limitations barred Insurer’s lawsuit. In KC Welding, on July 12, 2018, KC Welding, LLC (KC Welding) sent an employee to Sunbelt Shavings, LLC (Sunbelt) to repair the door of a box containing wood chips. Sunbelt’s employees discovered that KC Welding employees were welding a storage bin that had not been emptied of wood chips and Sunbelt’s employees asked KC Welding’s employees to leave. After that, Sunbelt’s employees attempted to soak the area with water. Later than night, a fire started on Sunbelt’s property, apparently as the result of smoldering wood shavings, a fire that was extinguished on July 13, 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES