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
Is Arbitration Final and Binding?
July 02, 2018 —
Jeanne M. Harrison - Smith CurrieParties involved in a dispute may face a choice between arbitration and litigation. Previous articles in this series have discussed various factors that can influence that choice. One generally perceived advantage of arbitration is finality. But how final and binding is an arbitration award? The answer is governed primarily by the Federal Arbitration Act.
The Federal Arbitration Act
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is a statute enacted in 1925 which provides the basic legal principles applicable to arbitration in the United States. At its core is the following principle—arbitration agreements involving interstate or foreign commerce (which includes virtually all construction contracts in the United States) must be considered:
- Valid
- Irrevocable; and
- Enforceable, except on legal or equitable grounds for the revocation of a contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeanne M. Harrison, Smith CurrieMs. Harrison may be contacted at
jmharrison@smithcurrie.com
In Massachusetts, the Statute of Repose Applies to Consumer Protection Claims Against Building Contractors
January 28, 2019 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistIn Bridgwood v. A.J. Wood Construction, Inc., 105 N.E.3d 224 (Mass. 2018), the Supreme Court of Massachusetts determined that the statute of repose barred the plaintiff’s consumer protection claims commenced more than six years after the occurrence of the event that gave rise to the claims. In Bridgwood, the homeowner filed suit against the contractors who had performed renovations 15 years earlier. The homeowner asserted that concealed faulty electrical work caused a fire 11 years after the work was completed. The complaint alleged that the contractors, by violating Mass. Gen. Laws. Chapter 142A §17(10), committed an unfair and deceptive act pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A.
Section 17(10) prohibits contractors from violating building laws and specifically states that a violation of Section 17(10) constitutes an unfair and deceptive act as defined by Chapter 93A. Chapter 93A is regarded as one of the most stringent consumer protection statutory schemes in the nation, and allows litigants to seek remedies such as treble damages and attorney fees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and WilliamsMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected for the 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch
September 11, 2023 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPBest Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch – 2024 Edition
Best Lawyers 2024 Edition
- Bruce Cleeland
- Peter Dubrawski
- Denis Moriarty
- Theodore Penny
Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2024 Edition
- Frances Brower
- Kyle DiNicola
- Kristian Moriarty
- Arezoo Jamshidi
- Josh Maltzer
- Philip McDermott
- Patrick McIntyre
- Annette Mijanovic
- Kathleen Moriarty
- Bethsaida Obra-White
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/24/24) – Long-Term Housing Issues in Hawaii, Underperforming REITs, and Growth in a Subset of the Hotel Sector
February 19, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, commercial real estate’s relationship with technology, towns and cities across the country prevent dollar stores from opening, empty offices and other commercial buildings are reused for housing, and more!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied
May 24, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied both parties' motions for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking clarification of the policy's contamination exclusion. Thor Equities, LLC v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62967 (S.D. N.Y. March 31, 2021).
Thor was a commercial landlord, renting properties across the country to hundreds of tenants, for use in a variety of businesses, including office space, retail stores, restaurants, and bars. When state governments began shutting down businesses and issuing stay-at-home orders in March 2020, many of Thor's tenants had to close shop and sought abatements or other accommodations. Thor alleged it suffered significant business interruption as a result of the pandemic.
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
Idaho Business Review Names VF Law Attorney Brittaney Bones Women of the Year Honoree
July 31, 2023 —
VF LawMeridian, Idaho: June 23, 2023 –
VF Law, a full-service law firm with offices across the Pacific Northwest and the Southwest, is pleased to announce that associate
Brittaney Bones has been recognized as an honoree for the 2023 Idaho Business Review Women of the Year Awards. The distinguished recognition celebrates 50 female leaders across Idaho who have made their mark while continuing to pave the path of leaders for the future.
When reviewing the applications, the judges considered excellence in leadership and a willingness to advance mentorship opportunities among the other considerations. In her work with the Community Associations Institute (CAI) Idaho, Bones currently serves as Vice Chair for the Legislative Action Committee. She monitors state legislation coming out of Boise. Accordingly, Bones seeks to educate lawmakers specifically on how pending legislation will affect the lives of people living and working throughout the Gem State. She also mentors students at the College of Idaho and has donated her time to the Rock Bottom Foundation, which provides meals to the unhoused.
Bones’s other accolades include an International Law Writing Award from Davis Wright Tremaine (DWT) for her 2020 article “Potential Solutions to Concerns over the Treatment of U.S. Investment in China: The Need for a U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty.” She frequently speaks at CAI events, helping to prepare her fellow legal professionals for challenges in the field—and those yet to come.
About VF Law
VF Law is a full-service, multi-state law firm. At VF, we believe that experience and knowledge are crucial; that’s why every attorney on our staff maintains a high level of expertise to ensure client success. VF possesses unmatched experience in providing HOA guidance, planning for healthy buildings from the ground up, helping small businesses and corporations run smoothly, handling real estate transactions and disputes, creating wills and trusts, and more. Visit www.vf-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court
April 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn Ashville, North Carolina, property owners have sued CTS Corp for alleged toxic chemicals in the soil and groundwater discovered decades after the company closed its manufacturing plant, according to the Citizen-Times. The contamination wasn’t discovered by the owners until 1999: “That lapse in time will be a primary point of consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court later this month when it hears arguments in a lawsuit brought by 25 Buncombe County property owners against the company.”
Citizen-Times declared that the “issue is a North Carolina law establishing a 10-year ‘statute of repose’ that sets a deadline for filing claims related to environmental pollution in cases involving real property, even if the victims weren't aware of the contamination until long after.” However, the law might be “pre-empted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act passed by Congress in 1980.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
