First-Time Buyers Shut Out of Expanding U.S. Home Supply
August 13, 2014 —
Prashant Gopal – BloombergThe four-bedroom house that Ilia Nielsen-Dembe purchased in west Denver earlier this year wasn’t her top choice. The first-time buyer had to settle on a home in a neighborhood with a high crime rate after losing out on bids for five properties in more desirable areas.
“I definitely sacrificed in terms of location,” said Nielsen-Dembe, 33, who lives with her husband and two daughters in the house she bought in April for $184,500. “I had to cross streets that were not ideal in order to get a house.”
While the supply of U.S. homes for sale is at an almost two-year high and price gains are moderating, buyers such as Nielsen-Dembe wouldn’t know it. An inventory crunch for entry-level houses has only worsened during the past year as discounted foreclosures become scarce and cash-paying investors snap up affordable listings to convert to rentals. Properties at the lower end of the market are also the most likely to have underwater mortgages, keeping would-be sellers from moving.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal, BloombergMr. Gopal may be contacted at
pgopal2@bloomberg.net
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts
December 16, 2023 —
Nicholas J. Zaita & Brian Glicos - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Introduction
In a matter of “first impression,” on November 30, 2023, the Appellate Division affirmed the New Jersey Superior Court decision in
Ernest Bock & Sons-Dobco Pennsauken Joint Venture v. Township of Pennsauken and Terminal Construction Corp., finding that the New Jersey Public Works Contractor Registration Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.48 to -56.57 (“PWCRA” or the “Act”), applies to a joint venture formed for the sole purpose of bidding on a public works contract. Therefore, the Court held that the PWCRA requires any joint venture bidding on public works projects in New Jersey to be registered under the Act at the time of bid submission. Accordingly, the Township of Pennsauken acted within its authority and properly rejected the bid submission of the Ernest Bock & Sons-Dobco Joint Venture which was not registered under the Act in the name of the joint venture at the time of its bid submission, despite the individual members of the joint venture being registered.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas J. Zaita, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Zaita may be contacted at nzaita@pecklaw.com
Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Has Hydrogen's Time Finally Come?
April 05, 2021 —
Mary B. Powers, Debra K. Rubin, Michael Dumiak, and Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-RecordGlobal conditions to harness the potential of hydrogen to fuel the developing clean energy transformation—particularly technology innovation, political investment and growing acceptance that climate change is a reality—finally appear to be lining up. While reports have noted hydrogen eyed as a fossil fuel replacement as far back as Jules Verne’s 1875 novel “The Mysterious Island,” with costs high and changemaking slow, it never captured the market many hoped for.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, ENR,
Debra K. Rubin, ENR,
Michael Dumiak, ENR, and
Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot
January 07, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, & Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight, Brown, & Bonesteel, LLPIn Annocki v. Peterson Enterprise, LLC, (Filed 11/14/2014, Certified for Publication 12/5/2014, No. B251434) the Court of Appeal, Second District, held a restaurant owed a duty of care to the driver of a motorcycle who died as a result of the negligent driving of a third party exiting the restaurant’s parking lot.
Decedent, Joseph M. Annocki, was driving his motorcycle on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, when it collided with the vehicle operated by Terry Allen Turner, who was exiting the parking lot of “Geoffrey’s" restaurant, which was owned and operated by the Defendant, Peterson Enterprise, LLC (“Peterson”).
The parents of the decedent (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Peterson, alleging Peterson failed to adequately staff the restaurant parking lot, which caused Turner to become confused and make an illegal left turn onto Pacific Coast Highway, thereby causing the accident that killed decedent. Plaintiffs further alleged Peterson knew, or should have known, that its parking lot and driveway were designed and in such condition as to create a danger of decreased visibility of the adjacent highway, and failed to adequately provide signage directing patrons that only right turns could be made onto Pacific Coast Highway.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Lawrence S. Zucker II and
Kristian B. Moriarty
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True
April 13, 2017 —
Patrick Clark - BloombergThere is probably only one place in America where an eight-year-old can ride a carousel whose seats look like excavator buckets, then swipe at bowling pins with a mini-digger—where, for a ticket price of less than $40, he or she can operate a backhoe, drive a drum-roller, and ride the telescoping arm of a construction lift 50 feet into the air to admire the Philadelphia skyline.
That place is a small theme park in West Berlin, N.J., called Diggerland USA.
Diggerland opened for the season in March, but even on a recent visit when the park was closed, its discordant appeal was obvious: Small children get to climb into the cabs of heavy-duty construction equipment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Clark, BloombergMr. Clark may be followed on Twitter @pat_clark
Scaffolding Collapse Kills Workers at China Construction Site
November 30, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe New York Post reported that a scaffolding collapsed in Beijing, China, “sending iron pipes, steel bars and wooden planks tumbling down on about 70 workers in the country’s worst work-safety accident in over two years.” Out of seventy workers, sixty-seven are reported to have died in the accident, while two are injuried, and one worker is missing. The cause of the accident is still under investigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent
June 05, 2017 —
Erik G. Nielsen - Snell & Wilmer Legal AlertColorado developers frequently cite Colorado’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act (CDARA) as an obstacle to building new condominiums in the state. Developers contend that the law makes it too easy for condo boards to sue developers for workmanship issues, however trivial. As a result, Colorado has seen significant growth in the development of rental apartments, while development of new, for-sale, multi-unit housing, has declined in the state. In 10 years, new condo development in Colorado dropped from 20 percent to just 3 percent of total new-housing starts. Recognizing this issue, Governor Hickenlooper and the Colorado Legislature have taken an interest in reforming CDARA by, among other things, making it more difficult for condo boards and associations to sue construction professionals. Well on its way to becoming law, HB 17-1279 does exactly that.
After the enactment of HB 17-1279, the executive boards of homeowners’ associations (HOA) in common interest communities will have to satisfy three broad elements before bringing suit against a construction professional on behalf of the community’s individual unit owners.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Erik G. Nielsen, Snell & WilmerMr. Nielsen may be contacted at
egnielsen@swlaw.com
