Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/23/23) – Distressed Prices, Carbon Removal and Climate Change
June 05, 2023 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn this week’s roundup, we consider distressed property bonds and loans, cities that are sinking under their own skyscrapers, efforts to lower carbon emissions, the unexpected potential of dirty diapers as a building material, and so much more.
Globally, more than $190 billion of property bonds and loans are
trading at distressed prices, a result of China’s real estate woes. (
Alice Huang and
Erin Hudson, Bloomberg)
PacWest Bancorp sees a stock market boost as it announces the sale of its
real estate loans, valued at around $2.6 billion. (
Jaiveer Shekhawat and
Chibuike Oguh, Reuters)
New construction home sales
exceeded expectations for April while existing home sales dropped. (
Anna Bahney, CNN)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Nobody Knows What Lies Beneath New York City
August 10, 2017 —
Greg Milner - BloombergBefore a single raindrop fell, Alan Leidner knew the waters could rise and throw the city into darkness. On this point, the maps were as clear as a crystal ball. All you had to do was look.
It was 2010, and Leidner was consulting for the government services company Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., contracted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to identify potential threats and vulnerabilities in the nation’s critical infrastructure. Leidner was examining a region that included New York and New Jersey. One day he was thinking about the area’s electrical power grid. He consulted some flood projection maps the Federal Emergency Management Agency had prepared. Then he stared at a map of the grid maintained by Consolidated Edison Inc., the region’s power supplier. And it just jumped out at him: The substation at East 13th Street, on the banks of the East River, was smack in the middle of a flood zone.
Leidner voiced his concerns with utilities, hospitals, and other major facilities. “The reaction was mostly, ‘Eh,’ ” he recalls, as we sit in the Tribeca offices of the Fund for the City of New York, where he directs the nonprofit organization’s Center for Geospatial Innovation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Milner, Bloomberg
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction
December 20, 2021 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogLast year, I posted regarding the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Woodbridge II, which concluded that the “adverse use” element for prescriptive easement claims only requires the claimant to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2. Thus, Woodbridge II concluded, the claimants acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. Id. That decision was up for review by the Colorado Supreme Court at the time of my prior post. It has now been affirmed, thereby settling an arguable appellate decision split created by Woodbridge II. See Lo Viento Blanco, LLC v. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2021 CO 56 (“Woodbridge”).
“Like the division below, and for much the same reasons,” the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed in Woodbridge “that under Colorado law, a claimant’s acknowledgement or recognition of the owner’s title during the claimant’s asserted prescriptive period does not interrupt the prescriptive use or undermine the claimant’s adverse use.” Woodbridge, ¶ 2. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Gabriel’s opinion agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning “that although Woodbridge recognized that it did not hold title, no evidence indicated that it had acted in subordination to the owner’s title.” Id. ¶ at 13. The Court further agreed with Woodbridge II’srejection of Lo Viento’s “permissive use” argument because “the permission offered … was conditional and Woodbridge never agreed to any of the conditions set forth therein.” Id. On that basis, Woodbridge confirmed that “a claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement need not show that it asserted exclusive ownership of the property during the prescriptive period,” but only “that its use was without permission or otherwise unauthorized and that it interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Id. at ¶ 23.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Want to Build Affordable Housing in the Heart of Paris? Make It Chic.
November 01, 2022 —
Marie Patino & Kriston Capps - BloombergThe project at 12 Rue Jean-Bart is a modest one, just eight units of affordable housing on a narrow lot in Paris near the Luxembourg Gardens. The social housing project nevertheless caused a stir with neighbors in the 6th arrondissement, one of the city’s more affluent areas.
When local politicians backing the project came to visit the building during its construction, neighbors shouted from windows across the street that it was a shame to build social housing here, according to Jean-Christophe Quinton, the Paris-based architect who designed the small in-fill development.
Local resistance was a persistent feature of the project throughout its three-year-long construction, Quinton says; the building regularly faced harsh scrutiny in local newspaper Le Parisien.
Reprinted courtesy of
Marie Patino, Bloomberg and
Kriston Capps, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations 2022 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
August 03, 2022 —
White and Williams LLPTwelve White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eleven received "Rising Star" designations. Lawyers are selected through a process that takes into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year’s list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.
Super Lawyers 2022
| Attorney | Practice Area |
|---|
| John Balaguer |
PI Defense: Med Mal |
| David Chaffin |
Business Litigation |
| Eric Hermanson |
Insurance Coverage |
| Michael Kassak |
General Litigation |
| Bridget La Rosa |
Estate Planning and Probate |
| Randy Maniloff |
Insurance Coverage |
| David Marion |
Business Litigation |
| Wesley Payne |
Insurance Coverage |
| Patricia Santelle |
Insurance Coverage |
| Jay Shapiro |
Criminal Defense: White Collar |
| Heidi Sorvino |
Bankruptcy: Business |
| Andrew Susko |
Civil Litigation: Defense |
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Spotting Problem Projects
October 26, 2017 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPPerhaps more than any other specialty contractor, electrical contractors bear the brunt of the “problem project.” Long after most other trades have completed their work and scattered in the wind, electrical contractors remain on site until the owner’s last inspection. And when the project is a “problem project,” the owner or prime contractor tend to liberally share their losses and liquidated damages among those specialty contractors remaining on site at the end. So what is an electrical contractor to do when the project starts coming off the rails?
What is a Problem Project?
First, it helps to identify the attributes of a problem project. While there are many negative qualities of a bad job, a problem project is one that busts budgets – whether labor, material, or time. Most commonly, the problem project will significantly exceed the labor budget. Because an electrical contractor’s most important (and understandably expensive) resource is its people, the labor budget is critical to the success of a job. When a project suffers delays or is ineptly managed, the labor costs soar, turning a potentially profitable job into a disaster.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection
September 29, 2021 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
