Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated
April 26, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorezCDJ STAFFDecision Affirmed in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the trial court in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate. In the trial case, Central Arkansas Foundation Homes (CAFH) sought payment for a home built for Choate, while Choate alleged that the builders committed multiple construction defects including using the wrong foundation materials and positioning the house in the wrong direction.
After the house was built, CAFH contacted Choate regarding payment, however, Choate alleged that the finished product did not match the contract. “ After CAFH completed construction, it obtained permanent home financing for Choate and tried to contact her to close the transaction. Choate did not respond until October 2005, when she sent CAFH a list of alleged construction defects, including that the house was facing in the wrong direction; that it was not built on a slab; and that the fireplace, garbage disposal, driveway, and storage area were missing. CAFH replied to Choate in writing, telling her that she had until January 6, 2006, to close on the house or CAFH would sell it. The correspondence enclosed worksheets showing that the amount Choate would owe at closing exceeded $94,000, which included interest that had accrued on the as-yet unpaid construction loan.”
Initially, the court found in favor of CAFH. “On April 18, 2007, Choate’s attorney withdrew from representing her. Soon thereafter, CAFH’s attorney asked the court to set a final hearing on the case. The attorney purportedly sent Choate a letter by regular mail on May 15, 2007, advising her that the case was set for trial on July 9, 2007. Choate, however, did not appear. CAFH did appear, and its general manager, John Oldner, testified to events leading up to the case and the amount of damages claimed. According to Oldner, the interest on the construction loan had accrued to the point that CAFH now sought $104,965.88 from Choate. The court found in favor of CAFH and entered judgment for that amount, plus attorney fees, on July 18, 2007. The court ruled that CAFH could sell the house and either remit any excess to Choate or look to Choate for the deficiency if the sales price did not cover the judgment.”
However, Choate successfully argued that she did not receive notice of the trial. A new trial was ordered, and the outcome was quite different. “On June 6, 2008, the circuit court entered judgment for Choate, ruling that the house was not in substantial compliance with the parties’ contract and that the contract should be rescinded. The court found that the house suffered from numerous construction defects, that the contract contemplated a slab rather than a concrete-pier foundation, and that CAFH ignored Choate’s complaints that the house was facing the wrong way. The judgment directed CAFH to hold Choate harmless on the construction loan, to deed Choate’s two acres back to her, and to remove the house from Choate’s property.”
The Court of Appeals “found that Choate would be unjustly enriched by retaining the benefit of the septic systems and utility lines that CAFH installed on her land. The court therefore awarded $5340 to CAFH as a quantum-meruit recovery for the value of that work. CAFH contends that the award is not sufficient, but we see no clear error.” In the end, the Court of Appeals provided this reason for declining to reverse the trial court’s decision: “The court in this case apparently concluded that the house constructed by CAFH was so fundamentally at odds with Choate’s contractual expectations that she was not unjustly enriched and should simply be, as nearly as possible, returned to the status quo ante. Accordingly, the court ordered the house removed from her property and permitted CAFH to either relocate the house or salvage the house’s materials and unused appliances. We decline to reverse the court’s weighing of the equities in this manner.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arizona Is Smart About Water. It Should Stay That Way.
February 19, 2024 —
Mark Gongloff - BloombergYou really have to hand it to Arizona: Even as its population has doubled and it has suffered through a decades long megadrought, the state uses less water today than it did 40 years ago.
This success story is the result of what may be the smartest, most conservative approach to water in the country. But homebuilders want to scrap some key elements of this careful system. It’s a bad idea, especially as the climate changes, making the state’s water supply less reliable. And it’s a cautionary tale for the rest of us as we try to adapt to a warming world.
In 1980, alarmed at watching its precious groundwater disappear amid rapid development, Arizona passed the Groundwater Management Act. The law established the Arizona Department of Water Resources, set up water-management zones around cities and required new housing developments to prove they had access to 100 years’ worth of clean water, among other things.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Gongloff, Bloomberg
Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage
March 19, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiDamage to the YMCA recreation center was not covered due to application of the earth movement exclusion. YMCA of Pueblo v. Secura Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15249 (D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2015).
On October 11, 2013, the insureds discovered a leaking water line in the men's shower, where one of the shower's on/off valves had detached from the water pipe behind the wall. The leak was repaired the same day.
On October 13, 2013, the pool deck near the therapy pool and surrounding block walls shifted and collapsed. The insurer admitted there was damage to the property. Several leaks were discovered in the pipes under and near the therapy pool, and the pool lost several inches of water.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule
January 02, 2024 —
Pam McFarland - Engineering News-RecordDays after the Biden administration rule reinstated state authority under the U.S. Clean Water Act to delay or deny construction permits on projects with water quality impacts, attorneys general from 11 Republican-led states, along with the American Petroleum Association, National Hydropower Association and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, filed suit in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pulling the Plug
December 13, 2022 —
Todd R. Regan - Construction ExecutiveAs a contractor, you may have wondered if your contract can be terminated by the owner for cause after the project has reached substantial completion. The answer is yes.
Under certain circumstances it may be permissible—or even necessary—for a project owner to terminate the contract for cause after the project has reached substantial completion. Although the rights of the parties in any case will depend in large part on the specific contract language, the fact that a project has reached substantial completion is not an absolute bar to termination for cause, particularly when the owner intends to pursue a performance-bond claim.
Completion Versus Performance
Following substantial completion, a contractor typically will have outstanding contractual obligations such as paying its subcontractors and suppliers, bonding off any mechanic’s liens, completing the punch list, remediating defective work, testing and commissioning equipment, providing manufacturer’s warranties and performing its own warranty obligations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Todd R. Regan, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions
July 19, 2021 —
Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocsMost construction contracts contain insurance provisions setting forth the insurance required of the contractor or other downstream parties. Some provisions are detailed and lengthy while others are short and sweet, but all are of critical importance and should be fully understood by the contractor before signing the contract. Also, every insured should understand not only what the contract requires but more importantly what the actual policy states, as the policy, not the contract, will govern whether or not there is coverage. It is possible that certificates received will match the contractual requirements, but much of what the policy covers is not reflected on a certificate. Lurking behind the certificate is the policy, which is where the actual coverage lies. The endorsements or exclusions to the policy can make the certificates worthless pieces of paper.
There are many exclusions that can cancel coverage for the work a contractor may perform. Height exclusions, residential exclusions, EFIS exclusions and many more, focus on the type of work or materials that the contractor is performing or using. One exclusion, however, focuses on who is insured and that exclusion alone can eliminate all coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at
lstanziale@foxrothschild.com
Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction
March 25, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomOrange County, Calif. (March 4, 2024) - Orange County Partners Esther P. Holm and Alexandra Anast obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a real estate matter involving a failed real estate transaction. The property at issue, which was located in the West Hollywood Hills and had beautiful views, was undergoing extensive remodeling. There were several bids for its purchase. Ultimately, the plaintiff, a real estate investor, was awarded the purchase.
The plaintiff and the seller entered into a real estate purchase agreement, but the plaintiff failed to release the physical contingencies within the 17-day period prescribed by the contract. Instead, the plaintiff demanded a reduction in price, which the seller rejected. The plaintiff then filed a lis pendens on the property, clouding the title and making it impossible for the sellers to sell the property to anyone else. The buyer and seller subsequently engaged counsel. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the seller as well as the real estate company and its agents. Prior to trial, the plaintiff and the seller reached a settlement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .
November 30, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsDid you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did.
Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien.
In Prav Lodging, the facts were a bit unusual. The day after the mechanic’s lien was recorded by Synchronized Construction Services, Inc. (“Synchronized”) the construction manager, Paris Development Group, the construction manager and de facto general contractor, went out of business. Despite this fact, and after the lien was bonded off, Synchronized sued to enforce the lien and for breach of contract against Paris. The wrinkle here is that Synchronized was unable to serve several defendants, among them Paris, within one year of filing suit as required by Virginia statute. In the Circuit Court, the financing bank moved to dismiss the suit for failure to serve necessary parties. The Circuit Court dismissed the breach of contract count but refused to dismiss the mechanic’s lien count on this basis.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
