Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Denial of Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens Does Not Automatically Create Basis for Certiorari Relief

November 16, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent appellate decision out of Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal holds that a trial court’s denial of motion to dissolve a lis pendens does NOT automatically give a basis for a petition for a writ of certiorari. Generalized allegations of “irreparable harm” to support the basis for the petition for writ of certiorari are insufficient. Rather, the party moving for the petition MUST clearly demonstrate the irreparable harm; otherwise, the petition for writ of certiorari will fail. A lis pendens has legal significance. It is a recorded document that notifies the world that there is a pending lawsuit dealing with the real property at issue. This is important because who wants to buy a piece of property that is subject to litigation – that would be a risky transaction! In CPPB, LLC v. Taurus Apopka City Center, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1837a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), a dispute arose as to a real estate transaction. The owner sold a parcel to a buyer. The owner also owned three adjacent parcels. As part of the transaction, the buyer agreed to perform certain improvements to all of the parcels including those adjacent parcels owned by the owner. The owner deposited funds in escrow for purposes of its share of the improvements. A payment dispute arose regarding the improvements and the buyer sued the seller. The seller filed a counterclaim to rescind the transaction along with a recorded lis pendens on the parcel purchased by the buyer. The buyer moved to dissolve the lis pendens which the trial court denied. This prompted the appeal – a petition for a write of certiorari based on the trial court’s denial of the motion to dissolve the lis pendens. 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

Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

January 11, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When an association files a lawsuit pertaining to matters of common interest, the lawsuit is typically filed as a class on behalf of the owners that make up the association (i.e., the association’s members). How do you deal with an arbitration provision that is included in an owner’s purchase-and-sale agreement or recorded in the deed? The recent opinion in Lennar Homes, LLC v. Martinique at the Oasis Neighborhood Association, Inc., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D15c (Fla 3rd DCA 2021) dealt with this exact issue with a homeowner’s association ruling that the association was required to arbitrate its latent construction defect claims against the developer (homebuilder). In this case, a community in Miami consisted of 26 townhouse buildings. There was a broad arbitration provision in each owner’s purchase-and-sale agreement that included disputes relating to property damage. Further, with each closing, a special warranty deed was recorded that included a nearly identical arbitration provision. The association became aware of latent defects relating to the exterior walls of the buildings and filed a lawsuit against the developer (homebuilder). The developer moved to compel the dispute to arbitration which was denied by the trial court because there was no specific agreement between the association and the developer that required arbitration and the lawsuit dealt with matters that the association was obligated to maintain. 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

Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

May 23, 2022 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner Vik Nagpal and Associate Attorney Tim McNulty of the Encinitas office recently obtained a substantial victory on behalf of BWB&O’s client after a 10-day binding construction arbitration before a three-arbitrator panel of the American Arbitration Association. BWB&O’s client was sued by the Owner of a commercial office building related to a multimillion-dollar tenant improvement project in San Diego. The Owner asserted construction defect damages, delay damages, architectural negligence, fraudulent billing practices and consequential damages of $3.6 million dollars. BWB&O’s client claimed breach of contract damages against the owner for failure to pay invoices. The Owner who had substantial financial resources and a personal spite against the general contractor, unreasonably pursued the case with an extensive team of lawyers and experts. At an earlier full-day mediation, the owner rejected a reasonable settlement offer which included a settlement payment to the Owner and the client’s agreement to dismiss their affirmative claim for damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Lane Construction Sues JV Partner Skanska Over Orlando I-4 Project

February 08, 2021 — Scott Judy - Engineering News-Record
One of Florida’s most troubled construction projects is now in court, with one partner in a design-build joint venture pitted against another. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

December 01, 2017 — Kevin C. Brantley - Payne & Fears
A California Court of Appeal has confirmed that additional insured endorsements (“AIE”) granting coverage for liability arising out of a named insured’s “ongoing operations,” and in effect during those “ongoing operations,” do not require that the liability arise while the named insured is performing work. McMillin Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., Cal. Ct. App., November 14, 2017, Case No. D069814. In McMillin, a construction defect insurance coverage action, Lexington Insurance Company argued that McMillin had no liability to homeowners until after their homes closed escrow; thus, McMillin did not face liability while the named insureds’ work was ongoing. The Court of Appeal rejected Lexington’s argument, finding that the “ongoing operations” AIEs provide only that McMillin’s liability “be ‘linked’ through a ‘minimal causal connection or incidental relationship’ with [the named insureds’] ongoing operations.” (internal citations omitted). The Court reasoned that Lexington had not established that all of the damage in the underlying action occurred after the named insureds completed their work, thus Lexington had not established as a matter of law that there was no potential for coverage for McMillin under the policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin C. Brantley, Payne & Fears
Mr. Brantley may be contacted at kcb@paynefears.com

Court Says No to Additional Lawyer in Las Vegas Fraud Case

October 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Leon Benzer, who has been accused of being one of the masterminds of the Las Vegas HOA scam, has been denied in his bid to add an additional attorney to his publicly-funded defense. Daniel Albregts, Benzer’s court-appointed attorney, made the request due to the large amount of evidence in the case. Federal prosecutors have provided the defense with more than 3.4 million pages of documents. According to U. S. Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr., “defendant’s counsel should be able to prepare and provide an adequate defense with the assistance of appropriate paralegal and other support services.” Mr. Albregts is currently assisted by Russell Aoki, whose role is that of technical consultant on matters regarding electronic distribution. Federal prosecutors opposed Mr. Albregts hiring Franny Forsman, a former federal public defender. Had Ms. Forsman been hired, the government would have paid $110 per hour for her services. The government is seeking $25 million in restitution from Mr. Benzer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

July 03, 2022 — Lewis Brisbois
Walnut Creek, Calif. (May 25, 2022) - In Gonzalez v. Mathis (August 19, 2021) 12 Cal. 5th 29, the California Supreme Court considered whether to create a third exception to the Privette Doctrine specific to known hazards on a worksite, when a contractor cannot remedy the hazard by taking reasonable safety precautions to protect against it. Privette Background Under the Privette Doctrine, the hirer of an independent contractor generally cannot be liable for injuries sustained by the independent contractor or its employees while on the job. This is due to the “strong presumption” that the hirer delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to the independent contractor. See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689. Since the Privette ruling in 1993, the California Supreme Court has identified two circumstances in which the presumption may be overcome. First, the hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198, 213. Second, a landowner who hires an independent contractor may be liable if the landowner knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard to the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 659, 664. Here, in the Gonzalez case, the court considered whether a landowner could be liable for known hazards on the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement

January 03, 2022 — Krsto Mijanovic & Elizabeth D. Rhodes - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
On January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026, and plaintiffs in any action or proceeding granted trial preference pursuant to CCP Section 36 before January 1, 2022, will be expressly allowed to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a survival action.2 This is a significant change in California law. In that regard, California is now the 46th state to permit this form of recovery. As reported in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest3, Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Federation of California, which co-sponsored Senate Bill 447, opined to the Legislature that the prior law provided a “death discount” to defendants which incentivized bad faith delays in resolution, and caused unnecessary congestion of the already overburdened court system. These argued issues will be vetted by the Legislature using the four-year reporting requirement that is also part of the amendment to the statute, requiring plaintiffs who recover this newly permitted category of damages to report the valuation and details of the case to the Judicial Council within 60 days of the judgment or other operative court document being entered in the court’s docket.4 The amendment will be evaluated by the Legislature for amendment or extension on or before January 1, 2026. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Rhodes may be contacted at erhodes@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES