Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?
October 29, 2014 —
James M. Mulligan, Esq. – Snell & Wilmer, LLPThis article responds to the article published in the September 18, 2014 issue of the Construction Defect Journal. It provides a different perspective to this issue, based on the author's experience with these matters during the past decade of attention to this specific challenge.
During recent years, there has been much discussion about the lack of attached ownership housing construction in Colorado. The main culprit, according to several sources within the community, seems to be our state's construction defect laws.
Since 2001, there has been a periodic series of legislative fixes to our construction defect laws that saw the pendulum swing back and forth between the interests of the consuming public who purchase the homes and certain protections of the developers and homebuilders from excessive and unnecessary litigation. Some say that the current state of the law is more onerous than necessary on the developers and homebuilders and it is artificially inhibiting the development of multifamily ownership housing in a time of high demand and low supply.
A recent opinion article in the September 29th, 2014 issue of the Denver Post stated, in part:
"No one is suggesting that developers escape liability for construction defects or that homeowners be denied the right to sue. But under the state's current defect laws, the scales have tilted too far in favor of litigation as the default tool for resolving disputes. And this appears to be the biggest reason for the collapse in the number of new multifamily [ownership] dwellings in recent years."
Rather than the typical conflict between the plaintiffs’ bar (representing the homebuyer) and the homebuilding industry that has produced the "back-and-forth" nature of our construction defect laws in the past, this 2014 legislative session found new constituents and a different perspective on the issue. A broad ranging coalition that included the Metro Mayors Caucus, major segments of the affordable housing community, and the general business community came together to address what their research showed as an astonishing lack of construction of ownership attached housing. There was a continuing boom going on in the development of multifamily "rental" housing, but an even more unusual deficit in multifamily "ownership" housing. Research apparently showed that, although about 20% + of construction of attached housing was in the ownership format throughout the Rocky Mountain West, Colorado was only producing about 2%. Interviews conducted by the research group that was retained by this coalition revealed that the development and homebuilding community were not willing to commence construction of ownership attached housing because of the continuing threat of litigation available under current interpretations of our state's construction defect laws. Lenders were also reluctant to provide financing for such projects faced with the apparent real threat of litigation that could shut down their projects and materially impact their loan viability and the value of the loan's collateral. Moreover, insurance premiums to cover such claims were so high, and many times unavailable, as to make such projects unfeasible.
This lack of available multifamily ownership housing was creating an ever-increasing concern over the resulting imbalance of housing options in and around the metro area, where the urban character of the metro region would need such ownership options in the attached housing format in order to address the more dense character of the urban setting. This imbalance of ownership attached housing was thwarting the advancement of "community" in the context of creating opportunities for all options of housing so important for a community balance. This included ownership options in this format that address the need for the younger professionals entering the workforce, newly forming households, seniors desiring to scale down their housing size and location, as well as the segment of the market who have limited means and need to address the affordability of homeownership. This was being most clearly felt along the FasTracks lines where attached ownership housing was an important element in originally advancing the TOD communities that are expected to be developed around these transit stops.
Rather than engage the battle of creating more contention in the various aspect of construction defect legislation per se, this coalition attempted to temper their approach and address specific issues that seemed to advance protection of the consuming homeowner while, at the same time, advocating a method of dispute resolution encouraged in the state's laws regarding such issues.
Normally, attached ownership housing is developed under our state laws governing the creation of Common Interest Communities ("CIC's"), including those communities where there are units that are attached and contain common elements. These CIC's will be encumbered by certain recorded documents (normally referred to as "Declarations") that structure the "community" within which the units are located and set up certain rules and restrictions that are intended to respect the common interests of the unit owners within that community. There is also a Homeowners Association ("HOA") organized for the common interest community that is charged with the management of the common elements and the enforcement of the rule and regulations governing the community.
The coalition chose to address their concerns through a bill including a couple of changes in the state laws governing CIC's, which would provide further protection to the homeowner and advance alternative dispute resolution as an expedient approach to resolving disputes should they arise. Those changes included:
1. Majority Owner Vote Re: Litigation -Rather than allowing two owners plus a vote of the HOA Board to determine whether or not to file litigation alleging construction defects in a CIC, the proposed change would require a simple majority vote of the unit owners who are members in the respective HOA where the alleged defect occurred. This approach addressed the increasing concern of unit owners whose homes are unmarketable and not financeable during the course of any such litigation.
This does not prevent an aggrieved owner from pursuing claims regarding that person's own unit, it just requires a majority of the owners to vote for litigation that affects the entire CIC in such litigation. This approach also included a provision for advance notice to the owners of such pending litigation accompanied by several disclosures regarding the potential litigation and its potential impact on the respective owner. This approach to protecting the rights of homeowners in a CIC seemed to be in line with everyone's interests, while not preventing an individual consumer/unit owner to advance its own claims.
2. Alternative Dispute Resolution -This proposal clarified the stated intent of the CIC statutes that advances alternative dispute resolution by providing that any mandatory arbitration provisions that are already contained in the Declaration that encumbers the respective unit in a CIC shall not be changed or deleted without the permission of the Declarant (e.g.; the developer of the CIC). This provision was to affirm a provision that the purchasing unit owner was aware of at the time of purchase and that it follows the spirit and intent of the state statutes governing such CIC's.
Notwithstanding the curative nature of these proposals, the legislation did not address the issue because a legislative maneuver was employed that did not allow for its consideration during the waning days of the session.
More recently, one of Colorado's municipalities, the home rule city of Lakewood, passed a local ordinance addressing this issue in a similar fashion, with a few more definitive suggestions regarding how to alleviate the lopsided nature of our current state of law. Without going into detail at this time with that specific ordinance, or the issue of its ability to address matters of a state-wide concern at the local level, the point is that several of Colorado's local communities, frustrated with the inability of the state legislature to deal with the issue are, at the very least, sending a signal that something must be done and, if the state is unwilling to lead on this matter, local communities will have to act.
This issue has not receded into the back room, and we will see a continuing crusade from an updated coalition to address these reasonable modifications to our state laws that will at least provide some protections to the CIC homeowner regarding unwanted litigation and some relief to the homebuilding industry from excessive litigation.
James M. Mulligan is a partner in the Denver office of Snell & Wilmer, LLP, a full-service commercial law firm located in nine cities throughout the Western United States and in Mexico. The firm’s website is http://www.swlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute
June 02, 2016 —
David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law BlogIn its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”).
In a
prior post, we discussed
Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The
prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute.
HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:
A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.
(Emphasis added.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
San Diego County Considering Updates to Green Building Code
August 06, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe San Diego County Board of Supervisors is meeting today to discuss “proposed building code amendments designed to promote energy efficiency in new homes,” according to Times of San Diego.
Possible recommendations include “install electrical panels large enough to accommodate future improvements; put in a conduit that could be used for future roof-mounted solar panels; reserve space on south-facing roofs where solar panels might be added later;” and others.
If the recommendations are approved, the “staff would draft detailed building code amendments and return early next year to get them adopted.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them
November 27, 2023 —
Jarred Trauth - ConsensusDocsRisks are inherent in every construction project and all parties involved face them: owners, designers, general contractors/builders, subcontractors, suppliers…. Equitably allocating such risks is one of the most important and most negotiated areas of any construction related contract. Limitations of liability provisions are key to risk allocation. These provisions include no damage for delay provisions and caps on delay damages, warranty limitations and exclusions, indemnity limitations, and consequential damage waivers. Another, and the focus of this article, is a liability cap fixing the total amount of damages for which a party may be liable under the contract (the “Liability Cap”). Liability Caps have become more and more common in construction and construction related contracts, including major component supply agreements and design agreements.
This article will discuss Liability Caps generally and considerations of an owner or contractor negotiating them, including carve-outs (i.e. exceptions) to them.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jarred Trauth, Jones Walker LLPMr. Trauth may be contacted at
jtrauth@joneswalker.com
Hawaii Bill Preserves Insurance Coverage in Lava Zones
May 20, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Hawaii legislature passed a bill in its recently concluded session to protect homeowners and businesses affected by lava flows from losing coverage.
The Puna district on the Big Island was severely impacted by the Pu`u O`o lava flow as it crept closer to homes, businesses, schools and populated areas. Problems were created by the imposition of a moratorium on the sale of new policies in certain areas of the Puna district.
SB 589 grants relief to homeowners who have had continuous insurance in lava zone areas that are declared to be in a state of emergency. The bill (1) allows the homeowners to have their policies renewed, (2) permits continued coverage for homeowners who wish to sell their homes, (3) grants coverage for new buyers of an insured property, and (4) allows homeowners who have not previously had insurance to purchase coverage from the Hawaii Property Insurance Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
U.S. Homebuilder Confidence Rises Most in Almost a Year
June 18, 2014 —
Shobhana Chandra – BloombergConfidence among U.S. homebuilders rose in June by the most in almost a year, a sign the residential real estate market is stabilizing after reeling from severe winter weather earlier this year.
The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo sentiment gauge climbed to 49 this month from 45 in May, the biggest gain since July 2013, figures from the Washington-based group showed today. Readings greater than 50 mean more respondents report good market conditions. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for 47.
Current sales, the outlook for future purchases and prospective buyer traffic all improved this month, today’s figures showed, indicating mortgage rates close to historically low levels and a strengthening job market are sustaining demand. Improving sentiment comes as the world’s largest economy picks up this quarter following a contraction in the first three months of 2014.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shobhana Chandra – BloombergMs. Chandra may be contacted at
schandra1@bloomberg.net
Banks Loosening U.S. Mortgage Standards: Chart of the Day
August 13, 2014 —
Jody Shenn – BloombergPerhaps more U.S. banks than at any time in two decades are making it easier to qualify for a mortgage.
The CHART OF THE DAY shows the net share of banks telling the Federal Reserve that they’re tightening standards in the home-loan market. In the central bank’s July survey of senior loan officers released last week, the net percentage for prime mortgages was negative 18.3 percent, by far the most loosening since it started asking the question by loan-quality category in 2007. It was also greater than the highest net share of banks easing in “all” mortgages in the 1990s or 2000s.
Still, lenders have a long way to go before they unwind the restrictions they imposed in the wake of the global financial crisis that risky home loans helped to create. The current trend is mainly about “small tweaks around the edges,” according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. mortgage-bond analysts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jody Shenn, BloombergMs. Shenn may be contacted at
jshenn@bloomberg.net
Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work
January 06, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen a contractor is defaulted under a performance bond, can its surety hire the same defaulted contractor to complete the work? Stated differently, can the performance bond surety engage its defaulted bond-principal in taking over and completing the same work the contractor was defaulted under? The answer is “yes” if you are dealing with a standard form AIA A312 performance bond (and other bond forms that contain analogous language), as demonstrated by the recent decision in Seawatch at Marathon Condominium Association, Inc. v. The Guarantee Company of North America, 2019 WL 4850194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
In this case, a condominium association hired a contractor in a multi-million dollar contract to renovate condominium buildings. The contractor provided the association, as the obligee, a performance bond written on an AIA A312 performance bond form. During construction, the association declared the contractor in default and terminated the contractor. In doing so, the association demanded that the performance bond surety make an election under paragraph 4 of the AIA A312 bond form that gave the surety the following options:
4.1 Arrange for the CONTRACTOR, with consent of the OWNER, to perform and complete the Contract; or
4.2 Undertake to perform and complete the Contract itself, through its agents or through independent contractors; or
4.3 Obtain bids or negotiated proposals from qualified contractors acceptable to the OWNER for a contract for performance and completion of the Contract, arrange for a contract to be prepared for execution by the OWNER and the contractor selected with the OWNER’S concurrence, to be secured with performance and payment bonds executed by a qualified surety equivalent to the Bonds Issued on the Contract, and pay to the OWNER the amount of damages as described in paragraph 6 in excess of the Balance of the Contract Price incurred by the OWNER resulting from the CONTRACTOR Default; or
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
