SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

October 10, 2013 — Derek Lindenschmidt — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
On February 28, 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion with regard to the ability of an owner (and in this case, a real estate investment owner) to withdraw and de-annex lots from a common interest community. Specifically, in Vista Ridge Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Arcadia Holdings at Vista Ridge, LLC, 300 P.3d 1004 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court denied Arcadia’s appeal of a lower Colorado District Court ruling which invalidated Arcadia’s attempt to withdraw and de-annex 70 single-family lots which it owned from the 94-lot Vista Ridge Filing No. 9. The applicable Declaration reserved the right to withdraw or de-annex any portion of the community in accordance with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA), and further limited such right to the extent that “no portion of the Property may be withdrawn or de-annexed after a Lot or Unit in that portion of the Property has been conveyed to an Owner other than a Declarant or a Builder.” The decision ultimately turned on the meaning of a “portion” of the property, as intended by CCIOA, and as applied to the specific language in the Vista Ridge Declaration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lindenschmidt
Derek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

---

Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

October 29, 2014 — Michelle Jamrisko – Bloomberg
The number of contracts to buy existing homes rose less than forecast in September, signaling demand will probably plateau heading into the end of 2014. The pending home sales index increased 0.3 percent after dropping 1 percent in August, the National Association of Realtors said today in Washington. The median projection in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for a 1 percent gain. Home resales have yet to regain last year’s peak as still-tight credit and low inventories remain hurdles for the industry, which means residential real estate will make a limited contribution to the expansion. The recent drop in mortgage rates and pickup in hiring will probably help underpin demand, even as first-time buyers struggle to enter the market. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg
Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

---

Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Presenting a “Total Time” Delay Claim Is Not Sufficient

September 12, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When presenting a delay-type of claim on a construction project, a claimant MUST be in a position to properly PROVE the claim. Trying to present a delay claim loosey-goosey is not a recipe for success. In fact, it can be a recipe for an easy loss. This is not what you want. To combat this, make sure you engage a delay expert that understands delay methodologies and how to calculate delay and do NOT present a total time claim. Presenting a delay claim using a total time approach, discussed below, makes it too easy to attack the flaws and credibility of the approach. Per the discussion of the case below, a total time claim with a contractor that used its project manager, versus a delay expert, to support its claim turned the contractor’s claim into a loss. In French Construction, LLC v. Department of Veteran Affairs, 2022 WL 3134507, CBCA 6490 (CBCA 2022), a contractor submitted a delay claim to the government for almost $400,000. The contractor was hired to construct a two-story corridor to connect hospital buildings. The contractor was required to be complete within 365 days. It was not. The contractor was seeking 419 days of delay from the government. The contractor’s “delay expert” was its project manager who compared the contractor’s as-planned schedule to an as-built schedule he prepared for the claim. 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

---

Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

May 13, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there the duty to defend a suit filed by the FDIC against officers and directors was not excluded by the insured versus insured provision in the policy. W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co. - Puerto Rico, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5943 (1st Cir. March 31, 2014). Regulators ordered the closure of the insured bank and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. FDIC concluded certain bank directors and officers had breached their fiduciary duty by jeopardizing the bank's financial soundness. The FDIC concluded these breaches had caused more than $367 million in losses and demanded reimbursement by the directors and officers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Construction Defects and Second Buyers in Pennsylvania

February 07, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The ability to sue over construction defects has typically been limited to the initial purchaser of a home. But as Kevin F. McKeegan writes in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently expanded that to subsequent purchasers. As Mr. Keegan notes, "not only can the first buyer of a new home bring a lawsuit against a builder, but now any subsequent buyer within 12 years of the home's construction can file a claim." Mr. Keegan, a lawyer with Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, notes that in the underlying case, the second owners of a home in Jamison, Pennsylvania filed a claim that the water infiltration violated the "implied warranty of habitability." There are still limitations on construction defects in Pennsylvania. The suit must be filed within twelve years of completion of the construction, and a breach of implied warranty must be proven. Mr. Keegan notes that "the homeowner must show that a defect is hidden and non-obvious, that it is the result of the builder's design or construction, and that it affects the habitability of the residence." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

October 07, 2019 — Robert A. Gallagher, Jane Fox Lehman, & Michael I. Frankel, Pepper Hamilton LLP - ConsensusDocs
Success in construction litigation often turns less on counsel’s ability to craft legal arguments and more on counsel’s ability to gather, master and present the often complex set of facts underlying the case. In construction matters, most of the key facts are found in documents: contract documents, drawings, plans and specifications, schedules, submittals, progress reports, daily logs, change orders, invoices and payment records. Nowadays, these documents will almost certainly be created, exchanged and stored electronically; many will never exist in hard copy. As such, timely collection, organization and analysis of electronically stored information (ESI) is crucially important in construction litigation. The construction industry has always involved a large quantity of records. Today, the majority of those records exist only as ESI: Design professionals use computer-aided design (CAD) software to create construction plans. Construction managers use Primavera or similar software to create schedules and workflows. Estimators use job cost control programs. Innovative firms capture digital photos of the project, from mobilization through the punch process. Because ESI is created and exchanged at a higher rate than hard-copy documents, ESI has facilitated a dramatic increase in the volume of records associated with construction projects. Further compounding the increase is the proliferation of mobile devices. With a smartphone in every pocket, ESI creation has moved out of the home office and the site trailer and onto the site itself. As the volume of ESI expands, so too does the time and expense associated with storing, processing, reviewing and producing these records. This article will cover strategies for balancing time and expense with the requirements of the rules and the needs of the case. Reprinted courtesy of Pepper Hamilton LLP attorneys Robert A. Gallagher, Jane Fox Lehman and Michael I. Frankel Mr. Gallagher may be contacted at gallagherr@pepperlaw.com Ms. Lehman may be contacted at lehmanj@pepperlaw.com Mr. Frankel may be contacted at frankelm@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

January 20, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the federal Miller Act, if a claimant is NOT in privity with the prime contractor, it needs to serve a “notice of nonpayment” within 90 days of its final furnishing. In this manner, 40 U.S.C. 3133 (b)(2) states: A person having a direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship, express or implied, with the contractor furnishing the payment bond may bring a civil action on the payment bond on giving written notice to the contractor within 90 days from the date on which the person did or performed the last of the labor or furnished or supplied the last of the material for which the claim is made. The action must state with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material was furnished or supplied or for whom the labor was done or performed. The notice shall be served–

(A) by any means that provides written, third-party verification of delivery to the contractor at any place the contractor maintains an office or conducts business or at the contractor’s residence; or (B) in any manner in which the United States marshal of the district in which the public improvement is situated by law may serve summons.

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

---