Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)
February 23, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday at Construction Law Musings I welcome Matthew Evans. Matt is the owner of
Law Offices of Matthew S. Evans, III, LLC located in Annapolis, Maryland. He has practiced construction, real estate and land use law in Maryland and D.C. for thirteen years. Prior to opening his own firm in May 2011, Mr. Evans was a partner at a mid-sized firm in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Mr. Evans lives in Historic Annapolis (only three short blocks from his office) with his wife Margaret, and three children, Matthew (5), Bo (4) and Peyton (2).
Some of the most common calls I get are from irate contractor or subcontractor clients who have not been paid demanding that I “lien the property”. Many times after calming the client down, I determine, to their dismay, that they are not entitled to a mechanic’s lien. In Maryland, the mechanic’s lien law is driven by statute, which contains specific requirements which must be met before the client is entitled to a lien.
The first question is whether the contractor or subcontractor is entitled to a lien for the work performed. Under Maryland law, “every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt, or improved to the extent of 15 percent of its value is subject to establishment of a lien…for the payment of all debts.” It’s easy when dealing with new construction. No matter how small your portion of the work, the property is subject to the establishment of a lien. It is more difficult to determine entitlement when there is either a total or partial renovation or other work. The question becomes how do you determine the value of the building, and whether it has been improved “to the extent of 15 percent of its value.” Believe me, I have seen creative and some not so creative methods of calculation used by counsel to prove that certain work does or does not meet the requirement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites
December 30, 2019 —
Newmeyer DillionNewmeyer Dillion, a prominent business and real estate law firm, is pleased to announce that, on November 18, 2019, the City Council of the City of Piedmont unanimously voted to approve the installation of 17 small cell wireless telecommunications sites by Newmeyer Dillion client Crown Castle NG West LLC, the leading provider of shared communications infrastructure in the United States. This victory ends a long-running legal dispute over Crown Castle's small cell wireless network, which was vehemently opposed by Piedmont residents and previously rejected by the City Council, prompting Newmeyer Dillion to bring a lawsuit against the city in 2017.
The dispute began in 2016 when Crown Castle filed an application with the City Council of the City of Piedmont to build nine small cell wireless sites designed to provide critical wireless telecommunications coverage in Piedmont. In October 2017, the Council denied the network, rejecting some of the proposed sites or approving others with onerous conditions.
Newmeyer Dillion's Government, Land Use and Environmental practice group filed a lawsuit on behalf of Crown Castle in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in November 2017, challenging the Council's decision. Drawing from the language established in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the lawsuit alleged that Piedmont's ordinances established an unreasonably high bar of approval, unlawfully prohibiting telecommunications services in the city.
The city quickly requested a court-supervised settlement, which was approved by the City Council in December 2018 and allowed Crown Castle to reapply to build 17 small cell wireless telecommunications facilities. The unanimous City Council approval came after extensive mediation work between the two parties.
"We are excited that our years-long efforts have culminated in this major win for Crown Castle, allowing them to build out critical telecommunications infrastructure in the City of Piedmont," said Michael Shonafelt, partner at Newmeyer Dillion. "With the growing national need for robust telecommunications networks that can handle voice communication and modern data demands, approvals such as this are significant, not just for the community the network serves, but for the viability of the national telecommunications network as a whole. Our team is proud to be using our multidisciplinary, business-oriented approach to successfully advise clients navigating these issues."
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of corporate, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, Newmeyer Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case
June 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.
The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.
Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”
On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.
Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Plaintiffs Not Barred from Proving Causation in Slip and Fall Case, Even With No Witnesses and No Memory of Fall Itself
February 01, 2022 —
David Hoynacki, Arezoo Jamshidi & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn January 19, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), held that a plaintiff is not barred as a matter of law from proving causation in a slip and fall case if there were no witnesses to the fall, and the plaintiff does not remember the fall itself. The Court of Appeal stated specifically that circumstantial evidence would permit a jury to make a “reasonable and probable inference” regarding contributing factors to a fall, even with no eye-witness evidence.
In
Kaney v. Mazza (BC619247, Jan. 19, 2022), plaintiff and appellant Lydia Kaney (Kaney), was visiting her sister in her rented home in September of 2014. At some point during the visit, the light in the bathroom at the top of the stairs stopped working—Kaney used the stairs, and fell. Kaney filed suit against her sister and the owner of the home alleging premises liability, negligence, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In her deposition, Kaney testified that she remembered going up to the bathroom, and then waking up on the floor in pain. She could not remember how she fell; she did not know if she had missed a step, or if she had slipped and fallen backwards. She speculated that a worn-out bath mat may have been the cause of the slip and fall because the rubber traction on the bath mat was worn away.
Reprinted courtesy of
David Hoynacki, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Hoynacki may be contacted at dhoynacki@hbblaw.com
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity
January 31, 2018 —
David R. Cook Jr. – Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPWhen a contract is drafted by a party, the other party expects some level of one-sidedness in favor of the drafter. But there are times when a contract goes too far. There are certain provisions that most persons in the construction industry would find unacceptable, unfair, and beyond the pale – even for a one-sided contract. Such a provision was arguably found in an electrical subcontract at issue in a 2014 opinion by a three-judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, due to long-standing Georgia law, the panel was forced to apply the provision as written.
In the case, a contractor hired a subcontractor to perform the electrical scope of work. When the subcontractor failed to pay a sub-subcontractor, the sub-subcontractor filed suit against the subcontractor, contractor, and the payment-bond surety. The contractor asserted a claim of indemnity against the subcontractor based on the sub-subcontractor’s claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms
October 21, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsAs reported recently in ENR Magazine, among other publications, the ConsensusDOCS folks have updated their contract forms. Why is this news?
First of all, it’s only been around three and a half years since these documents were officially released and this release is about 18 months sooner than anticipated (the original revision cycle was to be 5 years). Why the revision? According to my friend and counsel to ConsensusDOCS, Brian Perlberg, one major rationale is that “the economics of the construction industry today looks nothing like it did [in 2007.”
Among the changes are several terminology changes (“constructor” instead of “contractor” for instance), the addition of mandatory green building design as a basic service (these forms already have a Green Building Addendum) if included in the Owner’s plan and the ability to provide for prevailing party attorney fees (before both sides of a dispute bore their own fees).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Vermont Supreme Court Finds COVID-19 May Damage Property
November 07, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine & Lorelie S. Masters - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAs reported on this
blog, policyholders have long been of the view that the presence of substances like COVID-19 and its causative virus SARS-CoV-2, which render property dangerous or unfit for normal business operations, should be sufficient to trigger coverage under commercial all-risk insurance, as has been the case for more than 60 years.
However, many courts, federal courts in particular, despite decades of pro-policyholder precedent, have embraced the view that “viruses harm people, not [property].” Thirty-one months after the start of the pandemic, the first state high court has gone in a different direction, according greater weight to pro-policyholder precedent.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy
December 04, 2018 —
Phillip A. Perez - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In Am. Mining Ins. Co. v. Peters Farms, LLC,1 the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a mining error was not a covered accident under a commercial general liability insurance policy. The central issue was whether an insured mining company’s unauthorized removal of minerals from a neighboring property was an “occurrence” that unintentionally caused “property damage” as defined by the mining company’s commercial general liability policy (“CGL Policy”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Phillip A. Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Perez may be contacted at
pap@sdvlaw.com
