FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

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

---

The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

August 26, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
By 2050, 70 percent of world’s population of almost 10 billion people will live in urban areas. The presenters at the High Rise – Northern Exposure seminar envisioned how high-rise construction will meet the requirements of urbanization, and what technologies have to offer to builders and users today. A line-up of high-rise specialists shared their insights with a keen audience in Otaniemi, Finland, on June 25, 2019. The conference was a co-operation between The Glass Performance Days (GPD) 2019, Aalto University, and the Glass Innovation Institute. Peter Smithson of BG&E Facades and Kimmo Lintula of Aalto University co-hosted the event. After welcoming words from Jorma Vitkala, the chairman of GDP, the first four presentations were by architects; one from the USA, two from Finland, and one from Australia. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

August 04, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the US District Court for Illinois, Judge William Hibber has rejected the request for summary judgment sought by the developers of a condominium building in the case of Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 1735 W. Diversey, LLC (the insureds). The insureds renovated a building at 1735 W. Diversey, Chicago, converting it into condominiums. After the project was completed and all units sold, and a condominium association form, one of the owners found that unit suffered leaks during rainstorms. The condo board hired a firm, CRI, to investigate the cause of the leakage. CRI found “water infiltration through the exterior brick masonry walls, build-up of efflorescence on the interior surfaces of the masonry, and periodic spalling of portions of the brick masonry.”



The redevelopment firm had purchased coverage from Nautilus. “Shortly after the Board filed its first complaint, the Insureds tendered the mater to Nautilus and requested that it indemnify and defend them from the Board's underlying claims. Nautilus, however, rejected the Insureds’ tender and denied coverage under both insurance policies.” Nautilus stated that the water leakage did not constitute an occurrence under the policies. The court cited these policies in which an occurrence is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The Illinois courts have determined that construction defects are not accidents.



The court concluded that the insured did not bring forth claims within the coverage of the policies and denied the motion for summary judgment.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

February 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Builder magazine reported, “Sales of new single-family houses in January 2015 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 481,000, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is 0.2% (±22.2%)* below the revised December rate of 482,000, but is 5.3% (±22.1%)* above the January 2014 estimate of 457,000.” According to Metrostudy (as reported by Builder), builders seem to be getting ready for increased production this year: “An excellent leading indicator for housing starts is the number of lots reaching development (ready for the builder to start building). Our in-field research shows that lot development has doubled in the last two to three years in many markets.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

October 19, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (No. E064518; filed 9/29/17), a California appeals court ruled that after Continental was ultimately held to pay its policy limits for remediation of the Stringfellow hazardous waste site, the insured State of California was entitled to mandatory prejudgment interest on the full amount dating back to 1998, when a federal district court had issued a judgment under F.R.C.P. 54 declaring the State liable under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and state law. To get there, the state appeals court held that vertical exhaustion applied to the attachment of Continental’s excess policies. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

June 09, 2016 — Pam Hunter McFarland – Engineering News-Record
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 234-177 on June 8 to postpone implementation of the Obama administration’s more stringent 2015 ozone regulations by at least eight years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Hunter McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com

---

Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

March 13, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, 58 F.4th 1250 (D.C. Circ. 2023), dealt with the issue of whether a subcontractor’s superintendent constitutes recoverable “labor” within the meaning of the Miller Act and compensable as a cost under the Miller Act that typically views labor as on-site physical labor. The issue is that the Miller Act covers “[e]very person that has furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253 quoting 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(1). The Miller Act does not define labor. The subcontractor claimed labor includes actual superintending at the job site. The surety disagreed that a superintendent’s presence on a job site constitutes labor as the superintendent has to actually perform physical labor on the job site to constitute compensable labor under the Miller Act. The subcontractor argued its subcontract and the government’s quality control standards required detailed daily reports that verified manpower, equipment, and work performed at the job site. It further claimed its superintendent had to continuously supervise and inspect construction activities on-site: “[the] superintendent had to be on-site to account for, among other things, hours worked by crew members, usage and standby hours for each piece of equipment, materials delivered, weather throughout the day, and all work performed. These on-site responsibilities reflected the government’s quality control standards, under which the superintendent as ‘the most senior site manager at the project, is responsible for the overall construction activities at the site…includ[ing] all quality, workmanship, and production of crews and equipment.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253-54. 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

---