FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Breaking Down Homeowners Association Laws In California

April 03, 2019 — Lauren Hickey - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Purpose of HOAs Property ownership often combines elements of individual and common ownership interests. For example, a property owner may individually own his or her living quarters, but also own a common interest in amenities that are considered too expensive for a single homeowner to purchase individually (such as a pool, gym, or trash collection service). Properties with such elements usually take the form of apartments, condominiums, planned developments, or stock cooperatives (together known as “common interest developments” or “CIDs”). Whenever a CID is built, California law requires the developer to organize a homeowner association (or “HOA), which can take several different names, including “community association”. Initially, the developer relies on the HOA to market the development to prospective buyers. Once each unit in the development is sold, management of the HOA is passed to a board of directors elected by the homeowners. At that point, the primary purpose of the HOA shifts to maintenance of common amenities and enforcement of community standards. Dues/Assessments HOAs generally charge each homeowner monthly or annual dues to cover the cost of their services. HOAs may also charge special assessments to cover large, abnormal expenses, such as the cost of upgrades or improvements. The amount charged in dues and assessments is established by the HOA’s board of directors, within the limits set by the HOA’s governing documents and California Civil Code section 1366. Section 1366 provides that HOA dues may not be increased by more than 20 percent of the amount set in the previous year, and the total amount of any special assessments charged in a given year generally may not exceed 5 percent of the HOA’s budgeted expenses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lauren Hickey, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

April 11, 2018 — Luke Mecklenburg – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Last year, I wrote a post calling attention to stalled efforts in the Colorado legislature to pass meaningful construction defect reform. Shortly thereafter, the legislature got it done in the form of House Bill 17-1279. This bill creates an important pre-litigation notice-and-approval process whenever an HOA initiates a construction defect action in its own name or on behalf of two or more of its members. Before May 2017, the pre-litigation requirements that an HOA had to fulfill before bringing a construction defect claim under the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”) were generally minor. For example, while many declarations required majority approval from the community prior to initiation of claims, in practice, what the industry was seeing is that some HOAs were making it so that only a majority of the HOA Board had to approve bringing the claim, rather than the majority of interested unit owners. It was also common that, even where the majority of owners were involved, they were often voting in favor of filing a lawsuit or arbitration without fully understanding the risks and costs. This practice presented a risk to developers—it is easier to get approval from a small group than from a larger group, and it is easier to get approval when the voting owners do not fully appreciate the risks and costs inherent in filing a claim. Colorado House Bill 17-1279, which was signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper in May 2017 and is codified at C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5, lessens these risks by amending the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) to add certain pre-litigation requirements. Section 38-33.3-303.5 applies any time an HOA institutes a construction defect action its own name on behalf of itself or two or more unit owners on matters affecting the common interest community. C.R.S. §§ 38-33.3-302(1)(d), -303.5(1)(a). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

---

Burden Supporting Termination for Default

January 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Terminating a contractor for default is a “‘drastic sanction’ and ‘should be imposed (or sustained) only for good grounds and on solid evidence.’” Cherokee General Corp. v. U.S., 150 Fed.Cl. 270, 278 (Fed.Cl. 2020) (citation omitted). This is true with any termination for default because terminating a contract for default is the harshest recourse that can be taken under a contract. It is a caused-based termination. For this reason, the party terminating a contract for default needs to be in a position to carry its burden supporting the evidentiary basis in exercising the default-based (or caused-based) termination. Stated differently, the party terminating a contract for default needs to justify the reasonableness in terminating the contract for default. A party looking to terminate a contract for default should smartly work with counsel to best position its justification in exercising the termination for default. Likewise, a contractor terminated for default should immediately work with counsel to best position the unreasonableness or the lack of justification for the default-based termination. 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

---

Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

March 22, 2017 — David R. Cook - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a county’s claim on developer bonds based on its failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Douglas County v. Hamilton State Bank, — Ga. App. –, A16A1708 (Mar. 16, 2017). Specifically, because the bank was under FDIC receivership, the County was required to pursue administrative remedies under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (the “Act”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Regions Where Residential Construction Should Boom in 2014

January 13, 2014 — CDJ STAFF
Construction Digital reports that five regions should see a boom in residential construction in 2014, based on research from McGraw-Hill Construction. According to the report, the rise in residential construction is likely to be as much as 26% in single-family housing, with an 11% rise expected in multi-family housing. The regions that should benefit the most from these are Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Denver, and Los Angeles. Cities that want to be in on the 2014 boom are advised to “lower permit fees,” offer “construction grants and loans,” and to get the word out to contractors that the area is going to provide a favorable environment for contractors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Surfside Condo Collapse Investigators Uncover More Pool Deck Deviations

September 12, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The investigation into the 2021 collapse of the Champlain Towers South condominium in Surfside, Fla., has uncovered more deviations between the as-built conditions of the pool deck and the building’s design. But investigators emphasize their data are still preliminary as they continue to gather and test evidence from the collapse that killed 98 people. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Court-Side Seat: Permit Shields, Hurricane Harvey and the Decriminalization of “Incidental Taking”

May 31, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
This is a brief review of some of the significant environmental (and administrative law decisions) released the past few weeks. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT On April 22, 2021, the Court decided two important administrative law cases: Carr, et al. v. Saul and AMG Capital Management v. Federal Trade Commission. Carr, et al. v. Saul In this case, the constitutionality of Social Security Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) hearing disability claims disputes was at issue. More precisely, were these ALJs selected in conformance with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution? A similar issue was litigated in the case of Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission. There, the Court held that many of the agency’s ALJs were not selected in conformance with the Appointment’s Clause. Here, the Court held that this issue could be decided by the courts without compelling the litigants to first exhaust their administrative remedies. Thousands of ALJs are employed by the federal government, and it may take some time to resolve this question for every agency. AMG Capital Management v. Federal Trade Commission In this case, the court held, unanimously, that the Commission does not presently have the authority to employ such equitable remedies as restitution or disgorgement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

December 11, 2018 — Scott Van Voorhis – Engineering News-Record
Microscopic nanoparticles are part of the mix in nearly 600 construction products. The particles add strength, durability and other desired characteristics. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---