EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan
September 17, 2014 —
Freeman Klopott – BloombergA $511 million loan approved by a New York environmental agency to help fund the construction of a new $4 billion Tappan Zee Bridge was rejected almost entirely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The loan was intended to drive down borrowing costs for the replacement span being built across the Hudson River, with half of it being provided at zero interest. The agency, the Environmental Facilities Corp., approved the borrowing in June, saying it could use the funds from a program that targets clean-water projects.
The EPA said today in a letter to state officials that building a new bridge doesn’t fit the intention of the program, which is backed by federal dollars. The agency, citing the U.S. Clean Water Act, said only $29.1 million could be allowed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Freeman Klopott, BloombergMr. Klopott may be contacted at
fklopott@bloomberg.net
Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded
March 30, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIn an important decision regarding bad faith and the application of the work product doctrine to work performed by an insurer's in-house counsel, the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the Intermediate Court of Appeals's upholding the trial court's award of summary judgment to a title insurer on the issue of bad faith. Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 2016 Haw. LEXIS 30 (Feb. 4. 2016).
Llyod Anastasi loaned Alajos Nagy $2.4 million. The loan was secured by a mortgage on property. After Nagy executed the $2.4 million mortgage, a warranty deed was signed by Paul Stickney and purported to deed the property from Stickney to Nagy in exchange for $10 in consideration. Fidelity issued Anastasi a title insurance policy on the property in the amount of $2.4 million. The policy promised to provide a defense where a third party asserted a claims adverse to the interest of the insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Staten Island Villa Was Home to Nabisco 'Nilla' Wafer Inventor
July 09, 2014 —
Laura Vecsey – BloombergThe imposing and historic Staten Island mansion that once belonged to Gustav A. Mayer — the 19th century inventor who cooked up the recipe for the Nabisco “Nilla” wafer — has been listed for sale for $1.79 million.
Although the estate has been rumored to be haunted, listing broker Jungho Kim of the Level Group confirmed, “This is not a haunted house.”
In fact, the only spirits that have inhabited this mansion are the models and photographers who have used portions of the Gustav Mayer House as a spectacular setting for photo shoots.
The mansion rents out about 3,000 square feet of the 7,700-square-foot home for photo shoots that wind up in the pages of Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, W, Elle and New York Magazine.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Vecsey, Bloomberg
Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA
September 17, 2014 —
Jerrold Anders & Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLPIn Prieto Corp. v. Gambone Construction Co., the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered three issues arising out of a construction dispute, including whether construction of a curb falls within the scope of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516. CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is intended to protect contractors and subcontractors from abuses in the building industry and which establishes certain rules and deadlines for payments between owners, contractors, and subcontractors. Failure to abide by the act’s payment requirements subjects an owner or contractor to liability for interest, penalties and attorneys fees. In this case, Prieto was a subcontractor hired by Gambone to construct concrete or Belgian block curbs at Gambone’s property developments. Prieto sued Gambone under CASPA for failure to pay its invoices for four projects. After the trial court entered judgment for Prieto, Gambone appealed, arguing that CASPA did not encompass the work at issue, i.e. the construction of curbs, because curbs did not constitute an improvement to real property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jerrold Anders, White and Williams LLP and
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case
October 15, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the Windmill Harbour area of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, Danielle Smith is repairing her home after “spending almost $25,000 on unsuccessful legal battles and two years to secure a loan,” according to the Beaufort Gazette. The contractor who custom built the home was unlicensed, and “[t]he synthetic stucco used to build the house was faulty, causing water damage throughout that will cost $500,000 and six months to repair.”
Back in 2008, Smith’s case reached the state Supreme Court. The court ruled against her, reasoning “that the former owner, who had hired subcontractors to build the house, could not be held liable for the damage because he built it as a private home and had originally intended to never sell it.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132
May 08, 2023 —
Drew M. Jorgenson & Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer DillionThe Elimination of Judgment by Confession
Following in the footsteps of Massachusetts and Florida, California recently updated California Code of Civil Procedure section 1132 which renders judgments by confession unenforceable and inadmissible in any superior court, effective January 1, 2023. The bar is not retroactive, so judgments by confession obtained or entered before January 1, 2023 are still valid. Moving forward, consider the following.
What is a Judgment By Confession?
A judgment by confession, also known as a confession of judgment or "cognovit" clause, is a mechanism by which a debtor agrees that a creditor may summarily obtain a legal judgment against that debtor and enforce it in the event of the debtor's breach of contract or default. In other words, it is a private admission by a debtor that they are liable for a debt without the need for a trial, and consequently, agree to forfeit very important rights. Most importantly, parties agreeing to such clauses are waiving rights such as the right to notice of the judgment and the right to assert defenses against the creditor or third party's claims. Historically, without any judicial involvement, these types of out-of-court judgments would be enforceable.
Reprinted courtesy of
Drew M. Jorgenson, Newmeyer Dillion and
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Jorgenson may be contacted at drew.jorgenson@ndlf.com
Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFTheir remodels may dazzle on television, but someone who hired Bunelleschi Construction, the company owned by “Kitchen Cousins” stars John Colaneri and Anthony Carrino, wasn’t quite so dazzled. And now Robert and Peng Avery are suing the two men and their company for a kitchen remodel gone awry. They claim that the company left their Tenafly, New Jersey home uninhabitable.
According to the couple, the Brunelleschi’s work included “numerous gaps in sheetrock” and improper installation of ductwork, plumbing, and doors. They also claim that Brunelleschi Construction falsely claimed the work had passed final building and electrical inspections. When the company stopped work, the couple was unable to obtain a certificate of occupancy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
