Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period

April 20, 2017 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
With the session more than halfway through, the Colorado Legislature’s 2017 attempts at meaningful construction defect reform may fail again. This year, the Legislature did not attempt a single-bill construction defect overhaul like those that have failed over the last half-decade. Rather, it has sought to enact reforms on a piecemeal basis, with several smaller bills addressing specific issues that have been affecting condominium construction along Colorado’s booming Front Range. This new approach appears to be headed towards much the same outcome as the failed efforts of the past. House Bill 1169 would have given developers a statutory right to repair before being sued by homeowners, and Senate Bill 156 would mandate arbitration or mediation. Both have been assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee (often viewed as the “bill-kill committee”), and have little chance of being resuscitated this session. This was also the fate of House Bill 1279, but bipartisan support had many believing that it still had a chance of passing—at least until last week. House Bill 1279 would require an executive board of a homeowners association to satisfy several prerequisites before suing a developer or builder, namely to (1) notify all unit owners and the developer or builder against whom the lawsuit is being considered; (2) call an association meeting where the builder or developer could present relevant facts and arguments; and (3) get approval from the majority of the unit owners after providing detailed disclosures about the lawsuit, including the potential costs and benefits thereof. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

September 20, 2017 — Kevin Walton - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Arizona, a party successfully quieting title to property may recover its attorneys’ fees if it satisfies three requirements: (1) the party requests a quitclaim deed from the party adversely claiming title twenty days before bringing the quiet-title action; (2) the party tenders five dollars for the execution and delivery of the deed; and (3) the adverse party fails to comply. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1103(B). Recently, in McCleary v. Tripodi, No. 2 CA-CV 2016-0145, 2017 WL 3723472 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals awarded attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party under this statute. In McCleary v. Tripodi, Mrs. Tripodi, who became the administrator of her husband’s estate upon his death, wrongfully recorded three deeds purporting to transfer property to herself. After unsuccessfully attempting to get Mrs. Tripodi to quitclaim the property, the plaintiffs filed a quiet-title action. The trial court agreed that the plaintiffs were the legal and rightful owners, granted summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor, and awarded attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer

Understanding the Miller Act

February 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
John P. Ahlers of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, explained who is covered by the Miller Act in regards to Federal public works projects on the firm’s blog. Ahlers stated that “[t]he Miller Act requires that all general contractors post payment bonds on contracts in excess of $25,000.00.” In his blog post, Ahlers goes over coverage and the distinction between subcontractor and supplier. Ahlers commented, “While, at first glance, it may seem fairly simple to sort out who is and who is not covered by the Miller Act payment bond, the analysis can at times be factually and legally complex. This is an area that, if faced, the contractor should seek legal advice of an experienced construction lawyer before jumping to conclusions.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

November 21, 2018 — CDJ STAFF
In a good, recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit in International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Americabe-Moriarity, JV, 2018 WL 5306683 (11th Cir. 2018), held that Florida Statute s. 57.105(7) cannot be used to shift attorney’s fees in a contractual indemnification clause in a dispute between a general contractor and subcontractor’s performance bond surety, when the dispute does not involve an actual indemnification claim stemming from a third-party. In this case, a prime contractor terminated a subcontractor and looked to the subcontractor’s performance bond surety to pay for the completion work. The subcontractor had a standard AIA A312 performance bond that requires the prime contractor to comply with the terms of the bond, as well as the incorporated subcontract, in order to trigger the surety’s obligations under the bond. The surety filed an action for declaratory relief against the prime contractor arguing that the prime contractor breached the terms of the performance bond through non-compliance thereby discharging the surety’s obligations. The trial court agreed and the surety moved for attorney’s fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Census Bureau has released it numbers for the value of construction put in place for September and October, and while further numbers are forthcoming, this current report shows little change. The value of construction dropped a miniscule 0.3% in September, however, residential construction actually showed a slight increase. October then showed a 0.8% increase, but then private residential construction dropped by 0.5%. In all, however, by the end of October, private residential spending was up 17.8% over the prior year. As with other sectors of public spending, public residential spending dropped 3.4% from the prior year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation

November 05, 2024 — Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute Resolver
In the September 26, 2024 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series, Clifford Shapiro presented on Guided Choice Mediation (“GCM”) and how it can lead to better outcomes in construction disputes. GCM is an approach to mediation that focuses on early and efficient dispute resolution, which prominent mediators created as a public interest project. Shapiro described his particular variant of GCM based on his experience while acknowledging that other Guided Choice Mediators’ processes may differ from his in various ways. Shapiro’s brand of GCM focuses on ensuring that parties have reasonable expectations and appropriate settlement authority prior to arriving at a mediation. Some of the strategies to help accomplish these noble goals are (i) early mediator engagement, (ii) mediator facilitation of information exchange, (iii) mediator involvement with insurance issues (particularly important in construction defect cases, especially those with multiple defendants), (iii) pre-mediation ex parte meetings, and (iv) mediator participation in risk analysis. These strategies are not typical in the more traditional/historic approach to mediation in which mediation is scheduled based on a scheduling order, mediation statements are sent to the mediator roughly a week before the scheduled mediation (and sometimes not even shared with anyone other than the mediator), and the parties speak with the mediator for the first time on the day of the mediation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

2024 Construction Law Update

December 23, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We would like to wish you and yours a happy holiday season as we approach 2024. The first half of the 2023-2024 legislative session saw the introduction of 3,028 bills, which, according to legislative observers, are the most bills introduced in a session in more than a decade, perhaps reflecting the fact that California has a record number of new legislators with over a quarter taking the oath of office for the first time. Of these bills, Governor Newsom signed nearly 400 into law including several impacting the construction industry related to climate change and housing affordability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

April 19, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In law school, one of the first legal doctrines we learn is known as the “statute of frauds.” The statute of frauds is essentially a defense to a contract enforcement action claiming the contract is unenforceable due to the statute of frauds. In other words, this doctrine is raised when one party seeks to enforce a contract. The other party argues, “not so fast,” because the contract is NOT enforceable in light of the statute of frauds. Common scenarios where the statute of frauds comes into play are with transactions involving real property or agreements where services are not to be performed within one year. The statue of frauds doctrine is contained in Florida Statute s. 725.01:

No action shall be brought whereby to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer or pay any debt or damages out of her or his own estate, or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage, or upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, or for any lease thereof for a period longer than 1 year, or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof, or whereby to charge any health care provider upon any guarantee, warranty, or assurance as to the results of any medical, surgical, or diagnostic procedure performed by any physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, or dentist licensed under chapter 466, unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES