Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/23/24) – Construction Backlog Rebounds, Real Estate Sustainability Grows, and Split Incentive Gap Remains Building Decarbonizing Barrier
November 18, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, construction output decreased, office utilization unchanged, September apartment starts fell 15% from a year ago as developers pulled permits, and more!
- Developers pulled permits for a seasonally adjusted rate of 398,000 apartments in buildings with five units or more, a 17.4% YOY drop and a 10.8% decrease compared to August 2024. (Leslie Shaver, Multifamily Dive)
- Construction input prices decreased 0.9% in September due to dips in two of three energy subcategories, reflecting the trend of overall material price stabilization over the past 12 months. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
- Thanks in part to the Federal Reserve’s lowering of the interest rate, construction backlog rebounded in September after slumping at the end of the summer. (Joe Bousquin, Construction Dive)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Blueprint for Change: How the Construction Industry Should Respond to the FTC’s Ban on Noncompetes
May 13, 2024 —
Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction LawIn a groundbreaking move aimed at fostering fair competition and empowering workers, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a final rule last week to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. This ruling may carry profound implications for the construction industry, prompting construction businesses to reassess their practices and ensure compliance while maintaining competitiveness. Let’s explore how construction companies, large and small, can navigate this regulatory shift effectively.
Noncompete clauses have long been a staple in employment contracts within the construction sector, often used to protect proprietary information and retain skilled talent. However, the FTC’s ban on noncompetes demands a reevaluation of these practices. Employers must recognize the potential consequences of noncompliance, including legal repercussions and reputational damage, and take proactive steps to adapt to the new regulatory landscape.
Communications with Employees
The FTC rule requires employers to provide a form notice of non-enforcement to all present and former employees subject to an unexpired noncompete provisions. However, given the immediate legal challenges to the FTC’s rule and the fact that the 120-day compliance window has not yet begun, there is no reason to take immediate action or begin notifying employees. Instead, business owners should wait for at least 60 days before taking concrete action in response to the rule to see if any court temporarily enjoins the effectiveness of the rule.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLPMr. DeVries may be contacted at
mdevries@burr.com
Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform
March 29, 2017 —
David McClain - Colorado Construction LitigationOn March 17th, House Bill 17-1279, concerning the requirement that a unit owners’ association obtain approval through a vote of unit owners before filing a construction defect action, was introduced and assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. The bill is currently scheduled for its first committee hearing on March 29th, at 1:30 in the afternoon. While, on its face, this appears to be a step in the right direction towards instituting “informed consent” before an HOA can file a construction defect action, the bill actually restricts the ability of developer to include more stringent requirements in the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for an association, thereby lowing the threshold of “consent” required to institute an action.
House Bill 17-1279 would amend C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 to require an association’s executive board to mail or deliver written notice of the anticipated commencement of a construction defect action to each unit owner and to call a meeting of the unit owners to consider whether to bring such an action. Any construction professional against which a claim may attend the unit owners’ meeting and have an opportunity to address the unit owners and may include an offer to remedy any defect in accordance with C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5(3). The conclusion of the meeting would initiate a 120-day voting period, during which period the running of any applicable statutes of limitation or repose would be tolled. Pursuant to this bill, an executive board may only institute a construction defect action only if authorized by a simple majority of the unit owners, not including: 1) any unit owned by any construction professional, or affiliate of a construction professional, involved in the design, construction, or repair of any portion of the project; 2) any unit owned by a banking institution; 3) any unit owned in which no defects are alleged to exist, and/or 4) any unit owned by an individual deemed “nonresponsive.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Fourth Circuit Holds that a Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment is a Fee and Not a Prohibited Railroad Tax
April 22, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn February 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. City of Roanoke, et al.; the Chesapeake Bay Foundation was an Intervenor-Defendant. The Fourth Circuit held that a large stormwater management fee (stated to be $417,000.00 for the year 2017) levied by the City of Roanoke against the railroad to assist in the financing of the City’s permitted municipal stormwater management system was a permissible fee and not a discriminatory tax placed on the railroad.
The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 specifically provides that states and localities may not impose any tax that discriminates against a rail carrier, 49 U.S.C. § 11501. Accordingly, the issue confronting the Fourth Circuit was whether the assessment was fee and not a tax.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Miller Wagers Gundlach’s Bearish Housing Position Loses
May 19, 2014 —
Alexis Leondis – BloombergBill Miller said investor Jeffrey Gundlach and real estate billionaire Sam Zell are wrong about housing.
Gundlach, the chief executive officer of DoubleLine Capital LP, and Zell, chairman of landlord Equity Residential, predict fewer young people will buy homes, further driving down the U.S. ownership rate. Miller, the stock picker who beat the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index for a record 15 years, said he’s so confident lending and housing will rebound that he’s betting on mortgage insurers, homebuilders and subprime servicers.
“Anytime there’s a cataclysm, people always say it’s never going to come back,” said Miller, 64, sitting outdoors at a table overlooking Baltimore’s harbor. “I don’t believe there’s been a secular change in demand for housing. People may just rent longer than they otherwise would have before eventually buying.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alexis Leondis, BloombergMs. Leondis may be contacted at
aleondis@bloomberg.net
Texas Allows Wide Scope for Certificate of Merit
January 07, 2025 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistThe purpose of certificate of merit (sometimes referred to as affidavit of merit) statutes is to identify frivolous claims before the court wastes time and resources during litigation. More common in medical malpractice cases, several states have enacted similar requirements for professional negligence claims dealing with construction-related issues. While a subrogation attorney should not be bringing a frivolous case to suit anyway, the requirement adds another step in the process that plaintiffs need to properly navigate.
Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires that in an action arising out of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, claimants must file an affidavit from a qualified expert attesting to the theories of recovery, the negligence and the factual basis for the claims. The expert must be competent, have the same professional license or registration as the defendant and practice in the area of practice of the defendant.
In Janis Smith Consulting, LLC v. Rosenberg, No. 03-23-00370-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7961, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District (Court of Appeals) addressed a challenge from the defendant as to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s certificate of merit in an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the allegedly improper certificate of merit, holding that the plaintiff’s expert was sufficiently qualified to certify the legitimacy of the case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action
February 26, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFEarlier this month, Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta of Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian.
Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al. initially involved construction defect claims against the developer, K. Hovnanian, and the general contractor, Turner Construction, as well as a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. However, the construction defect claims settled prior to trial leaving only the breach of fiduciary claim.
“While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects.
The Plaintiff argued that K. Hovnanian breached its fiduciary duty to the Association by failing to set adequate reserves within the initial Department of Real Estate budget (“DRE”) for painting, caulking, and power washing the exterior of the building, referencing Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co., Inc. (1981) 114 Cal. App. 3d 783. In response, K. Hovnanian stated that in part, the initial reserves as set forth in the DRE budget were adequate, good faith estimates and, therefore, there was no liability for breach of fiduciary duty.
“Our case was exclusively concerned with the duties of the developer when forming the initial HOA, preliminary budgets, and reserves,” Gaeta said. “We litigated the duties and responsibilities of the initial board and whether a developer may rely on reports prepared by third-parties during the formation of a common interest development. The jury found our client’s actions and reliance on third-parties was reasonable and, thus, no breach of fiduciary duty occurred.”
Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli is a general civil litigation firm representing clients throughout California and Arizona. You may learn more about the firm at www.cslawoffices.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
