SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners
July 15, 2019 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsFor nearly 36 years, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) severely frustrated, if not all but foreclosed, a property owner’s right to bring a claim in federal court based on a regulatory taking. Under the Fifth Amendment, a property owner whose land has been “taken” by the government is entitled to just compensation. There are two types of takings direct or “inverse” or regulatory takings. A direct taking is where the government declares that it needs your land for public use and offers to pay you compensation. You might disagree with the amount offered – and that often is the case. But, a mechanism exists whereby a neutral third party – a condemnation board – will arrive at the compensation that is owed. On the other hand, an inverse condemnation or regulatory taking occurs when the government takes some action that restricts the use of the land in such a way as to severely impact it beneficial economic use. For example, if you own a strip of commercial property and intend to develop it and then the municipality comes along and suddenly changes the zoning classification of the parcel such that you can no longer develop it in a beneficial way, then you might have a regulatory takings case.
Under the Court’s Williamson County decision, property owners falling within the later category were required to exhaust state remedies before proceeding to federal court under a claim that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The problem with this is that, as the Supreme Court explained, it creates a Catch-22. If property owners exhaust their state remedies and the state remedies result in an unfavorable outcome, the federal court is powerless to overturn that decision under the doctrines of res judicata and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
Well, yesterday, the Court overturned Williamson County, in Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019). There the Court held unequivocally a “property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under Section 1983 at that time.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Norfolk Southern Accused of Trying to Destroy Evidence of Ohio Wreck
February 27, 2023 —
Jef Feeley - BloombergNorfolk Southern Corp.’s plan to remove wrecked rail cars from a derailment that resulted in potentially poisonous gas being released over an Ohio town will destroy evidence of the company’s liability, lawyers for residents say.
Lawyers in proposed class-action lawsuits over the Feb. 3 accident on Friday asked a federal judge to block the company from clearing the wreckage in East Palestine, Ohio. According to the lawyers, Norfolk Southern informed them last week that it planned to move the 11 rail cars by March 1 and would make them available for inspection for only two days.
Adam Gomez, a lawyer for East Palestine residents, said in a court filing that it was “common sense” to keep the wreckage where it is for now. “These communities have questions and we need the evidence to answer them,” he said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jef Feeley, Bloomberg
Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial
April 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn a recent hearing regarding the Cleveland, Ohio case Stonebridge Towers Homeowners v K&D Group, Judge John O’Donnell scheduled a trial for May 28th. Lead attorney for the homeowners stated that they would settle for “ten million and change,” according to The Plain Dealer. However, an attorney for K&D Group retorted that “the damaged condos could be fixed for much less money.”
“The lawsuit claims negligent design, poor construction and multiple defects resulted from fraud and bribe-paying by the developers,” reported Plain Dealer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Using the Prevention Doctrine
April 22, 2019 —
David Erhart - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogThe following scenario happens regularly in the construction industry. A contractor on a project reaches out to a subcontractor to perform work. Excited about the prospect of performing the work, the subcontractor signs a contract and puts it nose to the grindstone. After dutifully completing the work the subcontractor turns to the contractor and asks to be paid. But, the contractor refuses saying that there is a provision in the subcontract that says the contractor is only obligated to pay the subcontractor if the contractor receives payment from the owner. So the contractor has completed the work, but has no money to show for it.
One potential remedy for a subcontractor in this situation is the use of the prevention doctrine. “Under the prevention doctrine, ‘if a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused.’” Cox v. SNAP, Inc., 859 F.3d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 7171, 725 (4th Cir. 2000)). “Put simply, ‘where a party to a contract is the cause of the failure of the performance of the obligation due him or her, that party cannot in any way take advantage of that failure.’” Haddon Hous Assocs v. United States, 711 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245; Williston, § 39:4).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Erhart, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Erhart may be contacted at
derhart@grsm.com
Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects
April 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Courthouse Square in Marion County, Oregon is due to reopen after four years and nearly $23 million of repair costs to fix structural defects, according to the Statesman Journal. The square includes a courthouse building and bus mall, and is jointly owned by the county and transit district.
Two years after the Courthouse Square had been built, cracks were observed “in the building’s walls” and “paving stones on the bus mall shifted and settled.” A construction defect suit was filed in 2006.
However, the situation worsened in July of 2010 when “engineers determined that the entire complex was dangerous,” according to the Statesman Journal. “Building safety officials gave Courthouse Square’s occupants 60 days to move out, forcing county and transit district operations into temporary leased space.”
Now that the structural repairs have been completed, Dave Clark, project manager with Structural Preservation Systems LLC (the company awarded the repair contract), stated that the building’s structure is now stronger than most buildings. “If there’s an earthquake, come to this building,” Clark said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How Technology Reduces the Risk of Façade Defects
March 20, 2023 —
Ori Aphek - Construction ExecutiveThe shell of the building is an onlooker’s first impression and crafts the architectural aesthetic, but it also plays a crucial role in enabling energy efficiency and protecting against the elements. Because façades are in direct contact with the elements, issues with water intrusion are the most common problem and the costliest to remedy, with anywhere from 30% to 70% of lawsuits related to water intrusion, half of it through the façade. Additionally, improperly installed façades pose significant safety risks because unsecured parts can fall and hit people below.
All these factors contribute to the façade being one of the most complex and costly aspects of a building to construct and inspect, making up 205 of the total project cost. Installing these systems correctly the first time is the most effective way to mitigate these threats. Teams should utilize data-informed technology that ensures plan adherence, reducing risk and avoiding errors during installation.
The Challenges of Façade Installation
Façade installation and subsequent inspection are inherently challenging, particularly for high-rise buildings. When performing post-installation verification manually, inspectors must review every element, joint by joint, window by window, stone by stone and brick by brick, which can take months to complete. Inspections of the entire building system are limited by this process, as inspectors can only access one portion of the building façade at a time and often have to inspect from indoors, on balconies or at the ground level, which doesn’t paint a complete picture. As a result, teams typically only perform spot checks on the façade and are rarely inspected to their fullest. This leaves many installation errors and defects, which serve as ticking bombs for future water intrusion or safety hazards.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ori Aphek, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Major Change to Residential Landlord Tenant Law
July 15, 2019 —
Lawrence S. Glosser - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCGovernor Inslee has just signed SB 5600 which results in major changes to the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.18) regarding the eviction process of residential tenants. The changes do not apply to non-residential tenancies which are still governed by RCW 59.12. The new law includes additional protections for tenants and limits the ability of landlords to evict tenants or recover costs for legal proceedings. It also grants judges substantial discretion in eviction hearings whereas judges were previously bound by the express terms of the statute.
The major changes to the law are listed below:
- A landlord must provide a tenant 14 days’ notice instead of three days’ notice in order to cure default in the payment of overdue rent. The Attorney General’s Office will create a uniform 14-day notice to pay and vacate default form.
- Landlords must first apply any payment by a tenant to the rent amount before applying it towards other charges, including fees or other costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Glosser may be contacted at
larry.glosser@acslawyers.com
Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.
The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”
With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.
The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”
In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.
The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”
The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”
In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
