No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFDonna DiMaggio Berger, writing in the Sun Sentinel argues those may be the only current choices in Florida. A recent court case, Lakeview Reserve HOA v. Maronda Homes has caused a swift response from the legislators. Ms. Berger notes that the construction defect bill, HB 1013, “would take away a homeowner’s rights to pursue a developer for defects to the driveways, roads, sidewalks, utilities, drainage areas and other so-called ‘off-site’ improvements.” The alternative? She notes that applying the Maronda decision would “bankrupt developers who don’t build defect-free roads and sidewalks.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC
December 16, 2019 —
Associated Builders and Contractors - Construction ExecutiveThe construction industry added 14,000 net new jobs in August, according to an Associated Builders and Contractors analysis of data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. On a year-over-year basis, industry employment has expanded by 177,000 jobs, or 2.4%.
Nonresidential construction employment increased by 11,600 net jobs in August and is up by 114,200 net jobs over the last 12 months, translating into 2.5% growth. The majority of job gains emerged from nonresidential specialty trade contractors, which added 5,400 jobs last month and nearly 103,000 positions over the past year. Heavy and civil engineering added 4,400 net new jobs, while nonresidential building added 1,800 jobs on a monthly basis.
The construction unemployment rate stood at 3.6% in August, up 0.2 percentage points from the same time last year. Unemployment across all industries stood at 3.7% in August, unchanged from the previous month.
“While job growth across all industries fell short of projections, today’s employment report was just about perfect,” said ABC Chief Economist Anirban Basu. “Yes, employment growth has been softening for quite some time, with average monthly job growth totaling 150,000 during the last six months after approaching 200,000 during the prior six-month period. And employment growth estimates were also revised lower for both June and July. That said, looking beyond the headline number, August’s labor market performance was more than respectable, even accounting for about 25,000 of the jobs being added for temporary Census work.
Reprinted courtesy of
ABC, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Enforceability of “Pay-If-Paid” Provisions Affirmed in New Jersey
January 04, 2023 —
Levi W. Barrett, Michael S. Zicherman & Brian Glicos - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On December 7, 2022, the Appellate Division affirmed the New Jersey Superior Court decision in Jersey Precast v. Tricon Enterprises, Inc. et al., finding that the “pay-if-paid” clause in a material supplier’s purchase order with a general contractor was binding and enforceable. While clauses conditioning a general contractor’s obligation to pay its subcontractors on the general contractor’s receipt of payment from the project owner are not unique – this is the first time that a court in New Jersey has affirmed this practice in a published opinion. [1]
Background
The general contractor, Tricon, sent Jersey Precast its standard form purchase order for the supply of prestressed box beams to fulfill a public improvement contract with Union County. The reverse side of the form purchase order contained standard terms and conditions, and included a pay-if-paid clause drafted by Michael Zicherman, a partner of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. While Jersey Precast provided some draft revisions to the terms and conditions, Tricon never signed the purchase order and the proposed revisions were never accepted. Significantly, Jersey Precast did not attempt to modify the pay-if-paid provision. It later developed that the construction of the project became impossible, and the beams fabricated by Jersey Precast were not used. Tricon invoiced Union County for the cost of the beams, but the County failed to make payment and refused to accept delivery of the beams.
Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Michael S. Zicherman, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Zicherman may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com
Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule: Are Contractors Aware of It?
March 12, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFRemodeling Magazine reported recently that some remodelers are unaware of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule despite that it took effect back in April of 2010.
“There are still quite a few remodelers who have never heard of RRP,” Mark Schlager, president of Access Training Services, an EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) trainer in Pennsauken, N.J. told Remodeling Magazine.
According to the article, “The RRP rule applies to homes, apartments, and child-occupied commercial facilities built before 1978.” There are two RRP certifications required on every job: “a “Firm” certification for the company that contracts to do the work, and a “Renovator” certification for the person overseeing the work. A solo operator needs both certifications, which are good for five years.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.
The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.
The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.
In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.
The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.
A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”
Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis
January 15, 2014 —
Brady Iandiorio - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCIn a recent case of first impression, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the economic loss rule does not bar a nondisclosure tort claim against a seller of a home, built on expansive soils which caused damage to the house after the sale. The case of In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis represents a new decision regarding the economic loss rule. Because it is a case of first impression, we must wait to see whether the Colorado Supreme Court grants a petition for certiorari.
Until then, we will analyze the decision handed down on November 7, 2013. The sellers of the home sold it to an entity they controlled for the purpose of repairing and reselling the home. Before that purchase, Sellers obtained engineering reports including discussion of structural problems resulting from expansive soils. A structural repair entity, also controlled by Sellers, oversaw the needed repair work. After the repair work was completed, Sellers obtained title to the residence and listed it for sale.
Sellers had no direct contact with Gattis, who purchased the residence from Sellers. The purchase was executed through a standard-form real estate contract, approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission: Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate, to which no changes were made. Several years after taking title to the residence, Gattis commenced action, pleading several tort claims alleging only economic losses based on damage to the residence resulting from expansive soils.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Iandiorio may be contacted at
iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability
June 01, 2020 —
Rhonda Kreger – Newmeyer DillionSB 939 is currently working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would impose new obligations on landlords, and provide protections for commercial tenants who meet specified criteria. SB 939 would impose a moratorium on eviction of those qualified commercial tenants while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect. Any eviction actions commenced after the date of the emergency COVID-19 order, but before the adoption of SB 939, would be void and unenforceable. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
Who qualifies as a commercial tenant under SB 939?
To qualify under this legislation, a commercial tenant must be a business that operates primarily in California. The commercial tenant must be a small business, nonprofit, an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue. Publicly traded companies or any company owned by, or affiliated with a publicly traded company, do not qualify. The commercial tenant must have experienced a decline of at least 40 percent monthly revenue, either as compared to two months before the emergency COVID-19 order, or other local government shelter-in-place orders took effect, or as compared to the same month in 2019. If the commercial tenant is an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue, the commercial tenant must also show a decline of 25 percent or more in capacity due to social or physical distancing orders or safety concerns, and show that it is subject to regulations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that will financially impair the business when compared to the period before the emergency COVID-19 order or other local shelter-in-place orders took effect.
What eviction actions are prohibited while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect?
If adopted, SB 939 would add Section 1951.9 to the Civil Code. This section would make it unlawful to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy or otherwise evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency order proclaimed by Governor Newsome on March 4, 2020. Exceptions apply if a tenant poses a threat to the property, other tenants or a person, business or other entity. Any violations of this eviction prohibition would be against public policy and unenforceable.
Any eviction started after proclamation of the state of emergency but before the effective date is deemed void, against public policy and is unenforceable.
Does SB 939 impose new penalties or remedies?
Any landlord who harasses, mistreats or retaliates against a commercial tenant to force the tenant to abrogate the lease would be subject to a fine of $2,000 for each violation. Further, any such violation would be an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and would be subject to all available remedies or penalties for those actions under state law.
When is a commercial tenant required to pay unpaid rent due to COVID-19?
If a commercial tenant fails to pay rent during the emergency COVID-19 order, the sum total of the past due rent must be paid within 12 months following the date of the end of the emergency proclamation, unless the commercial tenant has successfully negotiated an agreement with its landlord to pay the outstanding rent at a later date. Nonpayment of rent during the state of emergency cannot be used as grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding lease terms to the contrary, landlords may not impose late charges for rent that became due during the state of emergency.
Are landlords required to provide notice of protections adopted under SB 939?
Landlords would be required to provide notice to commercial tenants of the protections offered under SB 939 within 30 days of the effective date. SB 939 does not preempt local legislation or ordinances restricting the same or similar conduct which impose a more severe penalty for the same conduct. Local legislation or ordinances may impose additional notice requirements.
Does SB 939 impose new protections for commercial tenants when negotiating lease modifications?
If enacted, SB 939 would permit commercial tenants to open negotiations for new lease terms, and provide commercial tenants the ability to terminate the lease if those negotiations fail. A commercial tenant who wishes to modify its commercial lease, may engage in good faith negotiations with its landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease. The commercial tenant must serve a notice on the landlord certifying that it meets the required criteria, along with the desired modifications.
If the commercial tenant and landlord do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement within 30 days, then within 10 days, the commercial tenant may terminate the lease without any liability for future rent, fees, or costs that otherwise may have been due under the lease by providing a written termination notice to the landlord. The commercial tenant would be required to pay previously due rent, in an amount no greater than the sum of the following: (1) the actual rent due during the emergency COVID-19 order, or a maximum of three months of the past due rent during that period, and (2) all rent incurred and unpaid during a time unrelated to the emergency COVID-19 order through the date of the termination notice. The payment is due within 12 months from date of the termination notice. The commercial tenant would be required to vacate the premises within 14 days of the landlord's receipt of the termination notice. Upon service of the notice, any lease, and any third party guaranties of the lease would terminate. If the landlord and commercial tenant reach an agreement to modify the lease, the commercial tenant would not have the option to later terminate the lease under this provision.
When is the next Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting for SB 939?
The Senate Judiciary Committee set a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The Senate will livestream the hearing on its website at www.sen.ca.gov. Public comments or testimony may be submitted in writing to the Judiciary Committee by emailing Erica.porter@sen.ca.gov. Alternatively, the public may participate via telephone during the public comment period. Any changes to the Judicial Committee schedule may be found at: https://www.senate.ca.gov/calendar.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures
December 15, 2016 —
Scott Van Voorhis – Engineering News-RecordAn engineering company whose error led to two pedestrian bridge collapses in North Carolina in 2014 that left one worker dead and caused costly damage contends it is being unfairly denied $2 million in potential insurance coverage by its carrier due to what it claims is an “ambiguous” wording of the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
