There’s Still No Amazon for Housing, But Fintech’s Working on It
February 14, 2022 —
Patrick Clark - BloombergIt’s hard to imagine a better scenario for real estate technology than the one that played out in 2021. Low interest rates and pent-up demand ignited the hottest housing market on record, while the pandemic gave buyers and sellers new reasons to conduct business virtually.
And yet the year will be better remembered for the way some of the biggest names in the industry struggled. The highest-profile flop was Zillow Group Inc., the online listings giant that pulled the plug on its nascent instant homebuying operation in the face of mounting losses. Compass Inc., the tech-driven real estate brokerage, saw its shares plummet 50% as part of a broader selloff in property-related technology stocks. Better, an online mortgage company, fired 9% of its staff.
The bumpy year underscored a problem that’s been holding back the adoption of technology in real estate for the past two decades. Each sale of a home involves hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, and no two properties are exactly alike. Silicon Valley-backed companies have gone a long way in making searching for homes and advertising them simpler and faster. But it’s a difficult process to move fully online and involves a lot of people such as agents, appraisers, brokers, and contractors, as well as entrenched interests. For example, Zillow’s house buying business—billed as a way for customers to get out of their homes quickly and speed the moving process—faltered in part because the company couldn’t find enough contractors to fix up those homes to resell them.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Clark, Bloomberg
Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Springton Point Condominium Association has settled its construction defect claims against Pulte Homes for $5.6 million. The residents of the 152-unit condominium community alleged a variety of defects which led to water intrusion, as well as a variety of other problems, including defective fire sprinkler systems and missing insulation.
Pulte filed lawsuits against its subcontractors on the project, however all but one of these were settled before the case went to trial. The lawsuit started in 2007, with Pulte adding the subcontractors in 2009. On October 25, a jury had been selected, but the case settled before opening statements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel
June 22, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – June 21st, 2016 – Prominent business and real estate law firm
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that partner
Carol Zaist has been named the firm’s General Counsel. Zaist will report to the Managing Partner, Executive Committee and other senior level management as it relates to the firm’s governance and policy matters. Zaist’s appointment is effectively immediately.
“We are excited to have appointed Carol as the firm’s General Counsel,” said Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner. “As we continue to expand across markets, this is another proactive measure to ensure our strategic growth and success.”
Zaist is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, concentrating her practice on business litigation, real estate litigation, and probate litigation. She has significant experience advising clients in contract disputes, business and property torts, and trademark and trade secret disputes in both federal and state jurisdictions. Zaist also serves as strategic counsel, advising clients on the impact of multiple litigation matters in different jurisdictions, and integrating strategy and tasks efficiently and cohesively. She will lend this variety of experience to her new role as General Counsel for the firm.
“I am honored and thrilled to work with our managing partner and Executive Committee to assist the firm in its strategic growth and development,” said Zaist.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim
October 26, 2017 —
Michael C. Parme – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority et al.(D068161, filed 9/26/17, publication order 10/19/17), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that the County of San Diego (County) and the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (Authority) were entitled to summary judgment on a developer’s “disguised taking” theory of inverse condemnation.
In 2001, the developer purchased two large lots (designated Lot 24 and Lot 25) adjacent to the end of a runway at the Palomar Airport in Carlsbad. Plaintiff obtained the necessary permits from the City of Carlsbad and successfully completed construction of an industrial building on Lot 24 in 2005. However, the plaintiff never began development of Lot 25 and the building permit for the property expired in 2012. The developer was then unable to renew the building permit because the Authority had adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in the interim period, which reclassified the Lots as part of a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The developer received a letter explaining that “despite the earlier approval the proposed development was no longer feasible because the ALUCP was more restrictive than the prior compatibility plan and the application's proposed use of ‘research and development’ was not permissible.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Parme may be contacted at
mparme@hbblaw.com
Be a Good Neighbor: Protect Against Claims by an Adjacent Landowner During Construction
November 09, 2020 —
Joshua Levy & Madeleine Bailey - Construction ExecutiveThere’s nothing like working in an office while pilings are being pounded into the ground next door, leading to crashing sounds of pile driving and the attendant afternoon headaches. Fortunately, that’s often the extent of a neighboring project’s real inconvenience. In other cases, however, construction in close quarters can mark the beginning of costly and emotional disputes, which can escalate to costly legal battles during and after construction.
NUISANCE AND STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CLAIMS
Construction claims are often based on the concept of “nuisance,” or on structural damage to adjacent property. Nuisance claims are typically based on noise and dust from construction sites, while structural damage claims are based on direct physical damage caused by neighboring demolition, vibrations, excavation and dewatering. These types of claims can result in monetary damages for neighbor plaintiffs, loss of permits for contractors and reputational damage to the developer.
In one recent case in New York City, the developer faces up to $10 million in damages in a lawsuit with a neighboring property owner. The developer was conducting excavation, dewatering and installation of steel sheet piles, which the plaintiff alleges caused its five-story building to settle and shift, rendering doors inoperable and causing extensive cracking and separation of floors and ceilings from walls and supports. The plaintiff filed its complaint on Jan. 24, 2019, and the lawsuit is ongoing, exemplifying that construction claims such as these can be time consuming and costly (Complaint, 642 East 14th St. v. 644 E. 14th Realty [N.Y. Sup. Ct. January 24, 2019]).
Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Levy & Madeleine Bailey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Levy may be contacted at
joshua.levy@huschblackwell.com
Punchlist: The News We Didn’t Quite Get To – May 2016
May 12, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIf you’re a solar contractor make sure you don’t get burned. The California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”) is taking a closer look at solar contractors as the industry grows in the Golden State. Only contractors holding a Class “A” Engineering, Class “B” General Contractor, or Class C-46 Solar license can perform solar construction and installation.
The CSLB has clarified that C-39 Roofing contractors can install installation as part of an overall roofing job. The CSLB considers such insulation work as “incidental and supplemental” under Section 831 of the California Code of Regulations and does not require a separate C-2 Insulation and Acoustical contractor license.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Pillsbury Insights – Navigating the Real Estate Market During COVID-19
July 06, 2020 —
Caroline A. Harcourt - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate BlogUntil COVID-19 officially took hold in the U.S. in March of 2020, the U.S. real estate market was active, even robust. Starting in March, however, the possible scope of the pandemic and the sudden imposition of stay-at-home orders resulted in deal volume falling precipitously—with sales, leasing and lending transactions being put on temporary “wait and see” pause or terminated altogether.
The impact of COVID-19 on the real estate market has not been felt evenly. Hotels have been hit extremely hard, with many hotels shuttered altogether and many others only open at staggeringly low occupancy rates. Retail likewise has been virtually shut down in various parts of the country—with retailers across the country asking for rental forbearance or lease surrenders and others, such as J Crew, Neiman Marcus and Pier 1, pursuing bankruptcy reorganizations or liquidation. Multifamily has also been relatively hard hit, and landlords are having to navigate a web of local, state, and even federal regulations regarding tenant protections, such as non-eviction orders. The least affected sector so far has been office—however employers and office space users who are becoming facile with zoom and “working at home” may well re-examine their usage of office space—and it is within the realm of possibility to imagine that even this sector may come under pressure over time.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Caroline A. Harcourt, PillsburyMs. Harcourt may be contacted at
caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com
Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Kansas Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that a homeowner’s suit against a plumber was barred under the economic loss doctrine. However, subsequently the Kansas Supreme Court “refused to extend the economic loss doctrine to homeowner claims against construction contractors.” In light of this, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court.
The case, Coker v. Siler, was brought by Gregory Coker, who had bought a home from J.M.C. Construction. JMC purchased an unfinished house from Michael D. Siler in August 2006. As part of the completion process, John M. Chaney, the president of JMC, installed the water line into the residence. Mr. Coker bought the home in September 2007.
Starting in April 2008, Mr. Coker noticed that his water bills had increased. Mr. Coker could find “no evidence of a leak above the ground,” so he contacted JMC Construction. Mr. Chaney had R.D. Johnson Excavation dig up the water line, after which a gap was discovered that had been allowing water to flow under the foundation. In addition to the higher water bills, an engineer determined that the water “resulted in cracks in the wall and uneven doors.”
Mr. Coker sued, Siler, J.M.C. and Chaney for negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and breach of express warranty. J.M.C. and Chaney requested a summary judgment. The court dismissed Mr. Coker’s claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty on the basis of the economic loss doctrine, rejecting a petition from Mr. Coker to reconsider. The court, however, allowed Mr. Cocker to proceed with his claim of express warranty. In December, 2011, Mr. Coker accepted an offer from J.M.C. of $40,000.
Mr. Coker then appealed the summary judgment, making the claim that while the court’s decision was based on Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., this has now been overruled by David v. Hett. In this case, “the court ultimately found the rationale supporting the economic loss doctrine failed to justify a departure from a long time of cases in Kansas that establish a homeowner’s right to assert claims against residential contractors.” The appeals court concluded that “although the district court properly relied on the law as it existed at the time of its ruling, the intervening change in the law necessarily renders the conclusion reached by the district court erroneous as a matter of law.”
In sending this case back to the district court, the appeals court noted that the lower court will need to determine if the “defendant accused of negligence did not have a duty to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff,” in which case “summary judgment is proper. Mr. Coker claims that Mr. Chaney did indeed have this duty.
Further, Mr. Coker claimed that Mr. Chaney had a duty arising out of implied warranty. The appeals court questioned whether the district court properly applied the economic loss doctrine to this claim, because despite being president of the construction company, Mr. Chaney “in his individual capacity as a plumber performing work for Coker, was not a party to the J.M.C. contract.” The court found that “Coker’s claim that Chaney breached an implied duty within such a contract fails as a matter of law.”
However, the court did uphold Cocker’s claim of a contractor liability for injury to a third party, noting that “Chaney owed Coker a legal duty independent of Coker’s contact with J.M.C.” The appeals court left it to the district court to determine if the defect that caused the damage was present when the house left J.M.C.’s possession.
The case was reversed and remanded “with directions to reinstate Coker’s claim of negligence against Chaney in his individual capacity as a plumber.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
