CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

WSHB Secures Victory in Construction Defect Case: Contractor Wins Bench Trial

October 01, 2024 — Wood Smith Henning & Berman
Wood Smith Henning & Berman is pleased to announce a significant victory in a bench trial led by trial attorney Thomas Fama. The case, which had been pending for nearly five years due to pandemic-related delays and unreasonable demands by the plaintiff, concluded with a resounding judgment in favor of the defendant. "The result of this trial is a testament to our team's unwavering tenacity and strategic focus throughout the entire process," stated WSHB partner Tom Fama, lead counsel in the case. "We kept our eye on the proverbial ball and diligently worked to expose the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims." The matter involved allegations of defective installation of a solar energy system, which the plaintiff claimed leaked during inclement weather. Fama and his team successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's claims lacked substance, highlighting numerous pre-existing conditions on the roof that could have been responsible for the problem. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wood Smith Henning & Berman

---

Preparing Your Business For Internal Transition

October 14, 2019 — Stephen P. Katz, Esq. - ConsensusDocs
When is it right to start thinking about succession planning and preparing a construction company for transition? Many would agree – in concept, at least – that serious thought regarding succession and transition planning should begin at a company’s inception and be revisited throughout its lifecycle, but as a practical matter, it is frequently not part of the mindset when growing a business. This article explores issues that construction company owners should consider in order to achieve smooth transition of ownership and control. We will address three critical questions:

• What happens to the business when an owner retires;
• In the event an owner(s) become disabled; and,
• Unplanned exit/owner pre-deceases her/his exit from the company

Owners who do not plan carefully for transition are often faced with the less than appealing option of liquidating their business for much less than its value, or by closing the business with no return upon that event. However, those who plan carefully can realize the value of their life’s work, pass the business to the next generation and see their legacy continue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen P. Katz, Esq., Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Katz may be contacted at skatz@pecklaw.com

---

New Jersey Judge Found Mortgage Lender Liable When Borrower Couldn’t Pay

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, Freedom Mortgage Corporation has to pay treble damages and legal fees after Bergen County Superior Court Judge Gerald Escala found the company “liable under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act for providing a home refinance loan to a 70-year-old borrower it should have known would be unable to make the payments.” “Escala further ruled that Freedom Mortgage must hold off on obtaining a foreclosure judgment for a year to allow an opportunity for borrower Mamie Major to look for someone to buy the property or to obtain refinancing elsewhere,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hartford Stadium Controversy Still Unresolved

September 22, 2016 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
The Hartford Yard Goats and the city of Hartford, Conn., say Arch Insurance—the surety for the dual developer/prime contractor of the minor-league baseball team’s new, unfinished stadium—has committed to helping complete the project now that the team and its developer have acrimoniously split. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr.com@bnpmedia.com

---

How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

May 20, 2019 — Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
It is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien. Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

---

Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

September 03, 2014 — Jody Shenn – Bloomberg
Potential home buyers watching this year’s plunge in 10-year Treasury yields can be forgiven for wondering why their borrowing costs aren’t falling at the same pace. The last time the benchmark Treasury rate fell as low as the 2.34 percent level reached last week, in June 2013, interest rates on typical mortgages were almost 0.2 percentage point less than they are now. There are a number of explanations: Yields on five-year Treasuries, which also help determine loan rates, have actually increased. And lenders that cut staff aren’t competing as aggressively by adjusting their pricing. No matter the cause, the effect is that a potential catalyst to get the faltering U.S. housing recovery back on track is failing to materialize. With home-loan rates stagnating at about 4.1 percent during the past three months, a renewed boom in refinancing also sits just out of reach. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net

---

Baby Boomer Housing Deficit Coming?

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Builder magazine, a new study by Epcon Franchising and Metrostudy found that “10 metro areas are expected to have a significant housing gap for baby boomers.” Furthermore, “52 percent of new-home buyers will be over 55 in the next five years.” Builder listed the top 10 markets that are expected to have a baby boomer housing deficit. The top three are Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and the District of Columbia. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals ruled on September 28 in the case of Burch v. Premier Homes. Ms. Burch bought a home after negotiating various addendums to the contract. The contract was a standard California Association of Realtors contract to which both the buyer and seller made additions. At issue in this case was paragraph 17 of the contract which included that “Buyer and Seller agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.”

The seller/defendant’s Addendum 2 “included provisions relating to the arbitration of disputes that may arise.” Ms. Burch’s realtor, Lisa Morrin, told Burch that “she had never seen a proposed contractual provision that would require a home buyer to agree to arbitrate with a builder over construction defects.” Ms. Burch told Morrin that she did not want to buy the property if she would have to give up her rights under California law.

As part of Addendum 2, the buyer had to buy a warranty from the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation. The sale was held up for a while, as Ms. Burch waited for a copy of the warranty. When she received it, she took further exception to Addendum 2. Scott Warren of Premier Homes said he could not sell the property without Addendum 2. Ms. Burch told her realtor that despite the claims made by Mr. Warren that this was for her benefit, she felt it was more to the benefit of Premier Homes. Don Aberbrook of HBW agreed to the clause, contained in the final sentence of Addendum 2, being struck.

Subsequent to buying the home, Burch submitted a claim concerning construction defects. HBW denied the claim and Burch began an action against the defendants. Premier filed a motion to compel arbitration which Burch opposed.

The trial court ruled that the striking out of the arbitration clause at the end of Addendum 2 “created a conflict with respect to the parties’ intent as to the scope of arbitration.” The trial court found that “the parties’ intention was to preserve Burch’s right to make state law claims including her right to a jury trial for any non-warranty claims against the builder.”

The appeals court in their ruling looked at the standard of review and concluded that the purchase agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was required to resolve that ambiguity. As the contract contained contradictory provisions as to whether or not arbitration was required, it was necessary for the trial court to examine these claims. The appeals court found that the evidence supported the conclusions of the trial court.

Finally, the appeals court found that “there was no valid agreement to arbitrate disputes.” The court noted that arbitration can only happen by mutual consent and “it is clear that Burch did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate any construction defect disputes she might have.”

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---