Withholding Payment or Having Your Payment Withheld Due to Disputes on Other Projects: Know Your Rights to Offset
January 04, 2021 —
Christopher C. Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
The right to offset refers to the common sense ability to reduce or eliminate your payment obligations to a party who owes you money on another contract. With offsets, common law largely tracks common sense. The right of offset is recognized by statute and court decisions in many states as well as under federal law and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The right to offset can also be established in the contract or subcontract.
But like many things that may seem simple, the right to offset can easily become complex. This article provides an overview of the extent and limits of the right to offset varies from state to state and with federal government contracts about the extent and limits of the right of offset. Construction trust fund statutes add another layer of complications.
These variations may not be obvious or intuitive, but they have a tremendous impact on your right to get paid or your right to withhold payment. Because of the variations, you must always confirm the law applicable to your contract or subcontract, which may not be where the project or you are located.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher C. Broughton, Jones Walker LLPMr. Broughton may be contacted at
cbroughton@joneswalker.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
Manhattan Homebuyers Pay Up as Sales Top Listing Price
October 01, 2014 —
Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergManhattan apartment prices rose 4.2 percent in the third quarter, bolstered by buyers who increasingly agreed to pay what sellers were asking or more.
The median sale price of condominiums and co-ops was $908,242, up from $872,000 a year earlier, according to a report today from appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate. The average price per square foot increased 12 percent to $1,270, the third-highest in records dating to 1989, the firms said.
Prices in Manhattan have climbed for four consecutive quarters, encouraging more owners to list properties after an inventory shortage last year. With the number of apartments on the market up 28 percent from the third quarter of 2013, buyers focused on those that were not-too-ambitiously priced, said Jonathan Miller, president of New York-based Miller Samuel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, BloombergMr. Carmiel may be contacted at
ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net
Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor
August 17, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerAB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and
Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would
create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” –
defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction,
alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a
subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general
contractor’s contract with the project owner.
Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of
completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and
pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s
employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated
damages from the general contractor.
AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management
cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action.
It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or
contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a
prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs, including expert witness fees.
Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to
provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure
to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability.
Impact
AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative
goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when
subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not
impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor.
As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on
the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily
regulated as public works.
CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How BIM Can Serve Building Owners
September 17, 2018 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessBuilding Information Models typically end their active life after the construction phase. An experimental project was initiated to find out whether and how they can serve owners throughout the life cycle of a building.
Gradia, the Jyväskylä Educational Consortium, provides education to students of all ages in central Finland. It has around 25,000 students, a staff of 1,100, and buildings with a total floor area of 150,000 square meters. Gradia and a team from Gravicon and XRM Finland carried out a government-supported KIRA-digi experimentation project in 2017 on the use of BIMs for building maintenance and repairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next
November 28, 2022 —
John F. Finnegan, III & Dominick Weinkam - ConsensusDocsIn the current regulatory environment, it is important for contractors to remain vigilant of heightened anti-competitive enforcement in the construction and procurement spheres by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Such vigilance should include, among other things, regular review of applicable laws and implementation of related updates to compliance policies, as well as careful evaluation of joint venture (JV), subcontractor, and teaming agreements.
Recent DOJ Activity Opens The Door To Broader Antitrust Exposure For Contractors
Many contractors include exclusivity and non-compete clauses in their vertical agreements, including subcontractor agreements and certain types of JV and teaming agreements. In fact, many widely available “checklists” for drafting these agreements recommend including such provisions; however, under U.S. antitrust law, particularly as enforced by the DOJ in the last 1-2 years, exclusivity and non-compete clauses may be construed as unduly competition-restricting. Although no court has yet held that exclusivity and non-compete clauses in vertical agreements violate antitrust laws, recent aggressive enforcement activity by the DOJ with regard to horizontal no-poach agreements suggests that the investigatory headwinds may be blowing in that direction.
Reprinted courtesy of
John F. Finnegan, III, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and
Dominick Weinkam, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Finnegan may be contacted at jfinnegan@watttieder.com
Mr. Weinkam may be contacted at dweinkam@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Scam Tied to Organized Crime?
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the initial tip-off came from Scott Canepa, a construction defect attorney who alerted the FBI about Leon Benzer’s activities in taking over homeowner boards. Canepa learned that Nancy Quon was taking part in the scheme and went to the FBI with the information. After FBI officials met with Canepa, they launched an investigation, which they named “Operation GrandMaster.”
Although a Benzer associate stated that Benzer claimed not to have ties to organized crime, and according to the Review-Journal, “preferred to think of himself as ‘just a bully,’” the case involves connections to a number of figures with ties to organized crime. Benzer with associated with John V. Spilotro, a lawyer whose uncle was an alleged overseer for Chicago organized crime operating in Las Vegas in the 70s and 80s. Another conspirator, Paul Citelli, reportedly has ties to organized crime in Buffalo.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose
November 07, 2022 —
Kyle Rice - The Subrogation StrategistIn Venema v. Moser Builders, Inc., 2022 PA Super. 171, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 414, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) upheld an award of judgment on the pleadings from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (Trial Court). The Superior Court found that Pennsylvania’s 12-year Statute of Repose for improvements to real property (Statute of Repose) began to run upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy following original construction of the home in 2003—not from the completion of repairs to the home that continued through 2008.
The underlying cause of action involved a home constructed by Moser Builders, Inc. (Moser) in 2003. The certificate of occupancy for the home was issued on August 13, 2003. Matthew Venema and Liza Squires (collectively, Venema) purchased the property from the original owners in 2004.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle Rice, White and WilliamsMr. Rice may be contacted at
ricek@whiteandwilliams.com
