Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

September 30, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

The Washington Supreme Court issued their opinion today on Williams v. Athletic Field, perhaps the most talked about construction law case in the past few years. I have discussed this case exhaustively here on Builders Counsel. Today we have a resolution.

In an unanimous opinion issued today, the high court sided with lien filers who followed a sample form provided in RCW 60.04.091. Additionally, the court found that a lien company - and presumably other persons - could sign the lien for the lien claimant, as an agent, without invalidating the lien.

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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Eight Things You Need to Know About the AAA’s New Construction Arbitration Rules

August 19, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I just finished a construction arbitration this past week, which also explains my sporadic posts as of late, sorry. Coincidentally, on July 1, 2015, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) implemented their newly revised Construction Industry Arbitration and Mediation Procedures. For those of you who follow our blog, you know I’m not a big fan of arbitration, which, from my experience, doesn’t deliver on its promise of better, faster, or cheaper, and ends up being pretty much the same thing as trial without the benefit of discovery, the rules of evidence, or appealability. The AAA is trying to change all of that though and in a news release announced that its new “Rules” “directly address preferences of users for a more streamlined, cost-effective, and tightly managed arbitration process that avoids the high costs of litigation.” Which makes you wonder whether they had to survey their “users” to come to this realization. But I digress. With the AAA’s new Rules come eight new changes, as follows: 1.Fast Track Procedures: Newly revised Rule F-1 now applies to two-party cases where no party’s claim or counterclaim exceeds $100,000. Under old Rule F-1 the monetary cap was $75,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
“Right to repair” statutes don’t only affect general contractors, but everyone involved in the building of a home, down to those who supply materials, warns Paul Gary in a post on Window & Door. He notes that “if you sell your window or door products in one of the growing number of states with a ‘Notice and Opportunity to Cure’ or ‘Right to Repair’ statute, you need a plan in the event you receive a defect notice relating to your product.” A supplier that receives a statement that a defect exists should, according to Mr. Gary, carefully document not only when the notice was received, but when it was sent, according to postmark, and whether the sender complied with all the regulations. From there, the supplier should determine if there were previous, informal complaints. Finally, determine sales information. At this point, the supplier has the information its insurer will require. His next caution is that in what follows, other may “seek defense and indemnity from you.” And while you may point out problems with the notice,” he counsels that “if you confirm there is an issue with your product, don’t be afraid to make a fair proposal for repair.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here

June 05, 2017 — Ivo G. Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP News Alert
It is paramount that a contractor diligently maintains its license prior to and during the performance of any contract work. Failure to do so could result in barring a contractor from receiving payment and/or disgorgement of profits received under the construction contract. California Business and Professions Code section 7031 is part of the Contractors State License Law (Business & Prof. section 700 et seq.), and is both feared and loathed by all contractors performing work in the state of California. This draconian statute is known as the “Shield” and was enacted over 70 years ago for the singular purpose to bar all actions by contractors seeking compensation for unlicensed contract work – even precluding a contractor from enforcing his or her mechanic’s lien rights. However, a contractor could potentially avoid the harshness of B&P 7031 by establishing that he or she had substantially complied with the appropriate licensing requirements. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 2017 AMENDMENT The substantial compliance exception is found in section B&P 7031(e), which authorizes the court to determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements, if the contractor has shown at an evidentiary hearing that he or she engaged in the unlicensed work had:

Been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract;
Acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain the license;
Did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not licensed when he or she performed the work; and
Acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate the license once it learned the license had lapsed.

Although not impossible, satisfying all four requirements of the exception was challenging for the contractor, specifically, requirement # (3) – the lack of knowledge that he or she was unlicensed during performance of work. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE POST 2017 Fortunately, Governor Brown heard the collective cry for relief and signed Assembly Bill 1793 (“AB 1793”) into law. The new bill revises the criteria for the court to determine if a contractor is in substantial compliance with the licensing requirements by deleting requirement # (3) in its entirety and modestly amending requirement # (4) to require the contractor to act promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure. As a result, the substantial compliance exception under B&P 7031(e) reads as follows: (e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor (1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure. This new legislation has tempered the burden of proof born by the contractor in establishing substantial compliance, although be it minor in its modification, the fact of the matter remains the same – be diligent in maintaining your license during all phases of contract work. Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in the Walnut Creek office focusing his practice on commercial transactions and business and construction litigation. For questions regarding California Business and Professions Code section 7031, please feel free to contact Ivo Daniele at (925) 988-3222 or ivo.daniele@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office

May 08, 2023 — Alexander R. Moore - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that Alexander R. Moore, Esq., has been promoted to Managing Partner of our Oakland office. Mr. Moore has been at Kahana Feld since 2021 and is a member of the construction defect and general liability practice groups. Mr. Moore has over 23 years of experience representing individual and commercial clients in complex disputes arising out of construction contracts, construction defect allegations, premises liability matters, landlord-tenant disputes, and contractual disputes arising out of various business relationships involving financial services companies, technology companies, telecommunications companies, real estate brokerages, non-profits, and a range of small businesses. When not focused on litigation, Mr. Moore enjoys consulting on transactional matters including the development of construction and business contracts. He has extensive experience evaluating rights and obligations under construction contracts and related insurance programs. He also assists clients in the implementation of pre-litigation risk management strategies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alexander R. Moore, Kahana Feld
Mr. Moore may be contacted at amoore@kahanafeld.com

Charles Eppolito Appointed Vice-Chair of the PBA Judicial Evaluation Commission and Receives Prestigious “President’s Award”

November 30, 2020 — Charles Eppolito, III - White and Williams LLP
Partner Charles (Chuck) Eppolito, III has been appointed as a Vice-Chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) Judicial Evaluation Commission. His three-year term begins immediately and will expire September 30, 2023. The PBA Judicial Evaluation Commission is responsible for developing and implementing a judicial evaluation process for appellate judicial candidates in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As Vice-Chair, Chuck will oversee reviewing the investigative panel's report, interviewing each candidate, discussing qualifications and reaching an agreement upon and issuing a rating for each candidate for appellate judicial office. Chuck has a long history of involvement with the 25,000-member organization, serving as PBA Secretary from 2007 to 2010, Chair of the House of Delegates from 2011 to 2013 and President from 2018 to 2019. Most recently, it was announced that Chuck is a recipient of a PBA “President’s Award” for his dedication and commitment to fulfilling the mission of the PBA COVID-19 Task Force. The award will be presented during the virtual PBA Awards Luncheon on Thursday, November 19, 2020. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Charles Eppolito, III, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Eppolito may be contacted at eppolitoc@whiteandwilliams.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

If You Purchase a House at an HOA Lien Foreclosure, Are You Entitled to Excess Sale Proceeds?

February 03, 2020 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
That pesky excess sale proceeds statute, A.R.S. § 33-727, is making waves again. We previously blogged about this statute here. In the prior post, we explained that excess sale proceeds (i.e., a foreclosure sale price greater than the lien being foreclosed) must be used to pay other lien creditors, in full, before the owner receives anything. Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that creditors also take excess sale proceeds before the person who purchased the property at foreclosure. The case, Vista Santa Fe Homeowners Association v. Millan, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0609 (Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019), is discussed below. The Facts In Vista Santa Fe, an individual bought a home secured by a first and second deed and trust. The homeowner defaulted on assessments owed to the Vista Santa Fe Homeowners Association (the “HOA”), and the HOA commenced an action to foreclose the resulting assessment lien. At the time, the HOA was owed approximately $14,000. Patterson Commercial Land Acquisition & Development, LLC (“Patterson”) purchased the property at the HOA’s sheriff’s sale for $42,000. After satisfying the HOA’s lien, the sheriff deposited the excess sale proceeds, in the amount of approximately $28,000, with the clerk of the court. Both Patterson and the second deed of trust holder, Bank of New York Mellon (“Bank”), submitted claims for the excess sale proceeds.[1] The trial court awarded the money to the Bank, and Patterson appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES