Port Authority Approves Subsidies for 2 World Trade Project
December 10, 2015 —
David M. Levitt – BloombergThe Port Authority of New York and New Jersey approved subsidies to help expedite the construction of lower Manhattan’s 2 World Trade Center, where Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox Inc. and News Corp. companies have a tentative deal to move their headquarters from midtown.
Developer Silverstein Properties Inc., which leases the sites for 2 World Trade Center and two other towers from the Port Authority, would receive a rent break that amounts to $9 million over the life of the lease, Authority Director Patrick Foye said, just before the agency board unanimously approved the proposal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims
October 28, 2024 —
Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation BlogIf a property owner claims there is a construction defect, that not only brings the project’s integrity into question but also your business’s reputation. So, how can you take steps to prevent these claims from causing such damage?
Here are three things to know before beginning a project to effectively protect it and
manage construction defect claims.
1. Documentation is key
California and Los Angeles County require certain permits and documents in order for a construction project to move forward. Los Angeles County
will also conduct plan checks to ensure everything is up to code. Detailed documentation will be important while making your plans.
However, keeping notes throughout every step of the project will also be essential. Documenting all aspects of the project helps you:
- Stay updated and aware of the project’s progress
- Proactively catch and handle issues that could result in disputes
- Create a record of evidence that can help manage defect claims
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott L. Baker, Baker & AssociatesMr. Baker may be contacted at
slb@bakerslaw.com
The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges
August 23, 2021 —
Aileen Cho - Engineering News-RecordFormer U.S. Dept. of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx grew up on “the wrong side of the tracks.”
“My home was a stone’s throw from Interstates 85 and 77,” recalls Foxx, who grew up in Charlotte, N.C., and served as DOT Secretary from 2013-17 under President Barack Obama. “The airport was nearby. Planes flew at low altitude over our house. Whether or not I was using the system, I sure heard and saw a lot of it.” Desirable areas to live were far away from transportation infrastructure, “and the property values of those living near these projects was diminished.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida
December 16, 2019 —
Brian A. Wolf & Miles D. Jolley - Smith CurrieSubcontractors and suppliers must now use new, statutory notice of nonpayment forms to preserve payment bond claims, and sign each notice of nonpayment under oath.
The State of Florida instituted changes to the statutes governing public-project payment bonds (section 255.05, Florida Statutes) and private-project payment bonds (section 713.23, Florida Statutes). The changes went into effect on October 1, 2019. Previously, notices of nonpayment were not required to be signed under oath. Now, the law requires the use of specific statutory notice forms that claimants must sign under oath. Previously, there were no statutory penalties for claimants who exaggerated the amount claimed against a payment bond. Now there are specific statutory penalties against a claimant who willfully or negligently signs a notice of nonpayment that includes a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished, or who is guilty of signing a notice prepared with willful or gross negligence.
Public construction payment bonds are governed by section 255.05, Florida Statues, also known as Florida’s Little Miller Act. This statute requires all payment bond claimants who don’t have a direct contract with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian A. Wolf, Smith Currie and
Miles D. Jolley, Smith Currie
Mr. Wolf may be contacted at bawolf@smithcurrie.com
Mr. Jolley may be contacted at mdjolley@smithcurrie.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Are Millennials Finally Moving Out On Their Own?
July 16, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBrad Hunter of Big Builder reported that there is “some evidence that young people who had moved in with their parents or relatives are now finding the means and the motivation to move out and get their own place.”
According to the 2013 Current Population Survey (as quoted by Big Builder), there was “a drop in the percentage of twenty-somethings living with parents. This was the first decline since 2005, back when the speculative foundations of the housing market started to crumble.” However, a study by the Harvard Joint Center on Housing found that “2.1 million more people between in their 20's lived with their parents than would have typically been the case based on normal headship rates.” This demonstrates that demand for housing should increase as this group gets older and decides to break out on their own.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lien Waivers Should Be Fair — And Efficient
February 18, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsThis week for our Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome back my good friend Scott Wolfe. Scott, a thought leader in the construction industry, combines his construction background, tech experience, entrepreneurial spirit, and legal education to bring a unique perspective to the industry’s construction payment problem. Scott is the founder of zlien, a venture-backed construction payment platform. A licensed attorney in six states, his writing has appeared in the New York Times, CFMA’s Building Profits, Supply House Times, Construction Executive, and tED Magazine. He has been a Keynote Speaker for the American Subcontractors Association annual conference, and spoken at CFMA events.
Lien waivers are perhaps the most legally and practically complicated documents exchanged in the construction industry. Unfortunately, this results in huge corporate inefficiencies, and worse, provides an opportunity for some parties to exert undue leverage over others.
Lien waivers — or lien releases, as they are commonly (but mistakenly) called — aren’t supposed to be complicated, though. They are designed to make the complex construction payment process easy and fair.
This article will address why that is, how it works, and where things have gone awry.
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
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home
June 14, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals in the case of Kizor v. Architects ruled that Mr. Kizor could not make construction defect claims against the architect and contractor of his home, as the defects had caused significant damage to the former owners, and it was they, not Kizor, who could have asserted those claims.
The background of the case was that John and Miranda Redig hired BRU Architects to design a home. During construction in 2000, they wrote to the roofing supplier complaining about leaks. The leaks were caulked, but the roof continued leaking during rains. The Redigs sold their house to Kizor in 2002, with an addendum to the sale contract protecting themselves from liability for further problems with the roof. “Seller has no responsibility for the condition of the roof and stucco and buyer absolves seller of any liability in connection therewith.”
In 2006, Kizor sued the architects, contractor, and subcontractor. The defendants moved for summary judgment which was granted. Kizor appealed, and in this current court case, appeal was denied.
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
