Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community
October 10, 2013 —
Derek Lindenschmidt — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.On February 28, 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion with regard to the ability of an owner (and in this case, a real estate investment owner) to withdraw and de-annex lots from a common interest community. Specifically, in Vista Ridge Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Arcadia Holdings at Vista Ridge, LLC, 300 P.3d 1004 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court denied Arcadia’s appeal of a lower Colorado District Court ruling which invalidated Arcadia’s attempt to withdraw and de-annex 70 single-family lots which it owned from the 94-lot Vista Ridge Filing No. 9.
The applicable Declaration reserved the right to withdraw or de-annex any portion of the community in accordance with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA), and further limited such right to the extent that “no portion of the Property may be withdrawn or de-annexed after a Lot or Unit in that portion of the Property has been conveyed to an Owner other than a Declarant or a Builder.”
The decision ultimately turned on the meaning of a “portion” of the property, as intended by CCIOA, and as applied to the specific language in the Vista Ridge Declaration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Derek LindenschmidtDerek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at
lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com
California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels
December 31, 2014 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., and David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinThe Complex Civil Litigation Program is relatively new as it has only existed in California
since 2000. Complex divisions dedicate courtrooms solely for litigation of complex civil
cases that require exceptional judicial management including construction defects, antitrust,
securities, toxic torts, mass torts, and class actions. Complex civil courtrooms help the trial
court operate in a more efficient, expeditious, and effective manner. A complex court
reduces costs for litigants by streamlining motion practice and expeditiously resolving
discovery disputes.
Not all counties have dedicated complex civil divisions. For those that do, each county has
its own local rules, and some complex divisions have their own particular set of rules. The
Judicial management of complex cases begins early, and is applied continuously and actively
with the idea that final resolution be expedited as much as possible. In focusing on
cooperation amongst the parties to achieve these goals, often requiring joint statements to
the court and a prohibition on discovery motions until after the parties have formally metand-
conferred on the issues. Moreover, complex cases are centralized and are assigned to
one highly skilled Judge for all purposes.
The first six California counties to create a Complex Civil division include Alameda, Contra
Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, and Santa Clara. Riverside County Superior
Court is the most recent California County to add a Complex division, effective January 2015.
Riverside county Superior Court’s Complex department consists of ten civil judges, seven of
which are in the main courthouse with Riverside. Riverside county expects to consolidate all
complex civil litigation into one courtroom by January 2015. Riverside county Judge Sharon
Waters state that "[i]t's been something that I personally have felt has been long overdue"
and that "[t]he idea is that put it with one judge and let him or her develop the expertise."
Judge Waters believes "[t]he potential value of establishing a complex litigation courtroom
[is that] it allows the judge to focus on the cases full time."1
As of October 2014, Riverside county had about 450 to 500 pending cases designated as
complex, over fifty percent (50%) of which involved construction defect matters. The sole
Judge who will preside over the complex cases has not yet been named.
1 Jolly, Vik. "Riverside to Shift Complex Civil Cases to 1 Courtroom." Los Angeles Daily Journal (October 13,
2014)
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
David A. Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com;
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com;
and Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages
February 23, 2016 —
William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor.
As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
More Thoughts on “Green” (the Practice, not the Color) Building
February 01, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt has been a while since I “mused” on the green building landscape. While I am a LEED AP and have presented on green (read “sustainable”) building in the past, I am not totally sold on LEED as the be all end all in sustainable construction (the USGBC is a private rating organization that, like the rest of us, is imperfect). I’ve also discussed, both here and elsewhere, the potential risks that come with any new(ish) building process.
A recent post by my fellow construction attorney Matt Bouchard (@mattbouchardesq) piqued my interest and started me thinking yet again. Matt’s recent post, entitled Is the U.S. Green Building Council Becoming a Not-So-Jolly Green Giant? outlines recent developments in the sustainable building world (remember “green” is not a specification, but a color), and some of the debate out there among those in the know. From a great infographic on the Top 10 LEED states (Virginia is 3rd) to some sniping from the USGBC (read the LEED folks) toward the GBI (Green Globes) to the fact that LEED is losing some traction as the primary governmental green building certification platform, Matt’s post is worth a read.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Judge Sentences Roofing Contractor Owner in Florida PPP Fraud Case
July 25, 2021 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordA federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., sentenced Casey David Crowther, 35, the owner of a successful Florida roofing contracting company, to 37 months in prison for using fictitious employee lists to obtain a $2.7-million federal pandemic-aid loan and then purchasing a $689,000 boat with the funds.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan
June 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe AFL-CIO has announced plans to generate up to $10 billion in funding for infrastructure development, training construction workers, and making buildings more energy efficient, pledging $20 million to retrofit buildings. Bloomberg News reports that union officials made the announcement in Chicago at the Clinton Global Initiative, releasing a statement from Richard Trumka, president of the union, “we, at the AFL-CIO, believe that together, with our partners in business and government, we can profitably invest significant resources to make America more competitive and energy efficient.” A foot injury prevented Mr. Trumka from attending the event.
The statement also quoted Mark Ayers, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, “the time is now to become intensely focused on the creation of jobs.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court
May 03, 2017 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (4/18/2017 – No. G053623), the Fourth Appellate District, in a 2-1 decision, considered two distinct issues: 1. Whether the attorney-client privilege for a confidential e-mail communication between a client and his attorney had been waived by the client’s inadvertent disclosure of the communication to a third party; and 2. Whether the opposing counsel’s failure to respect the claimed privilege as to the inadvertently produced document or to follow the rules for handling such documents set forth in State Compensation Ins. Fund v WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 644 (State Fund) supported the trial court’s disqualification of counsel and his law firm.
This case arose from an intra-family dispute over the deceased matriarch’s substantial investment holdings, a related probate matter, and two subsequent legal malpractice actions. The opinion sets forth in great detail the facts surrounding the claimed inadvertent disclosure by the client (i.e., the privilege holder) of the subject attorney-client e-mail communication, its subsequent dissemination to, and use by, the client’s family members, the ultimate receipt and review by an opposing family member’s counsel, the efforts by the client’s counsel to assert the privilege and “claw-back” the document, and in the face of this privilege claim, the opposing counsel’s extensive use of the document during discovery, including depositions, in the legal malpractice actions. The opposing counsel, who had received the subject document from his own client, had independently concluded that the clearly privileged document lost its privileged status, believing that the privilege had been waived either because of disclosure to third parties or that his obligation to return inadvertently disclosed documents only applied to those produced in litigation during discovery. As a result, the opposing counsel refused all demands for the return or destruction of the document and insisted upon continuing to use it. This dispute finally came to a head over two years after the client’s disclosure in the context of the client’s motion for a judicial determination that the document was privileged (which the trial court granted) and then a motion to disqualify the opposing counsel (which the trial court also granted); both decisions were eventually reviewed by the appellate court.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Res Judicata Not Apply to Bar Overlapping Damages in Separate Suits Against Contractor and Subcontractor
November 06, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesCan the doctrine of res judicata bar an owner’s claim against the general contractor after the owner also sued and obtained a satisfied judgment against the subcontractor when there are identical, overlapping damages pursued in separate lawsuits. A recent case says, not really.
In Pickell v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D2037a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), a homeowner sued a homebuilder and the homebuilder’s mechanical subcontractor in separate lawsuits. The claims and damages asserted in the separate lawsuits were substantially identical. The homeowner obtained a judgment against the mechanical subcontractor which was satisfied (i.e., paid). The homebuilder tried to use this as a get-out-jail-free card and claimed the homeowner was barred from suing it under the doctrine of res judicata based on overlapping claims and damages.
“To successfully assert a defense of res judicata, a party must prove four “identities”: “(1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.” Pickell, supra (citation omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
