Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

November 30, 2016 — Bob L. Olson – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
A quick drive through almost any newer residential community in the Southwest will show that a lot of residents are embracing “Green Energy” or renewable energy by placing solar panels on their properties. While most people would agree that increasing the use of alternative energy is socially responsible, there are a number of real estate investors that may view it as an opportunity to make additional profits by purchasing distressed properties with solar panels and then reselling those properties for more than they would be worth without solar panels. The theory is relatively straight forward as many believe that foreclosure of a deed of trust that was recorded before the solar panels were installed would extinguish any liens in favor of the vendor that sold or financed the sale of the solar panels. After all, it is generally held that “a valid foreclosure of a mortgage terminates all interest in the foreclosed real estate that are junior to the mortgage being foreclosed.” See SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 412 (2014) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property, Mortgages §7.1 (1997)). NOT SO FAST! While the general rule is that foreclosure of a senior lien terminates junior liens, most purveyors of solar panels do not encumber the property with mortgages or deeds of trust to secure payment of amounts they are owed. Rather, they typically either lease the solar panels to the property owner or secure repayment of the purchase price of the solar panels with a fixture filing under the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bob L. Olson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Olson may be contacted at bolson@swlaw.com

Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due Process

February 16, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
n my last post I discussed suing a local government for a substantive due process violation. In this post, I discuss a the right to procedural due process. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects prohibits the government from depriving an individual or business of life (in the case of an individual), liberty, or property without due process of law. Unlike the somewhat abstract and subjective concept of substantive due process, procedural due process is direct and objective. Generally, if an individual or business maintains a property or liberty interest, a local government must afford that individual or business notice that the government intends to deprive them of a liberty or property interest and a reasonable opportunity to be heard to contest the proposed deprivation. Unless there is an emergency, the notice and opportunity to be heard must be given before the government deprives an individual or business of a liberty of property interest. This is known as a pre-deprivation hearing. Because of the clear contours of the right, procedural due process violations are typically easier to prove than substantive due process violations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Permission for CityCenter to demolish Harmon Tower over claims of dangerous construction defects have been withdrawn by the judge in the case after the building’s insurer said it needed more time to investigate. After they were granted permission to demolish the building on August 23, CityCenter filed a claim of total loss with their insurer FM Global on August 27. Now FM Global is saying that they need to further inspect the building. Meanwhile, a demolition contractor has already gained approval to start removing the exterior glass. And things stand, it looks as if that won’t be happening on the planned date of December 2. CityCenter contends that FM Global has already done their inspections, describing FM Global’s prior actions as “the most extensive investigation of anyone,” according to Mark Ferrario, an attorney for CityCenter. Also, the initial plan to implode the building has been rejected. Should demolition proceed, the building will be dismantled floor by floor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

February 25, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Last week, the California appellate courts decided two cases with ramifications under the Right to Repair Act. The first case, Burch, addresses whether the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for the homeowner. The second case, KB Home, addresses a situation where a homeowner or the homeowner's insurer fails to follow the procedures under the Right to Repair Act. Last August, the Fourth Appellate District announced its decision in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 holding that SB 800 is not a homeowner’s exclusive remedy in situations where defects cause actual damage. Many lawyers believed that Liberty Mutual would be a one-off because of its facts – it was a subrogation case brought by an insurance company. So much for that. Now the Second Appellate District is getting into the act. In Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., the Second Appellate District overturned an order granting summary adjudication in favor of a developer, general contractor, and their respective owners, in a construction defect action brought by a residential homeowner. The trial court found that the Right to Repair Act precluded the homeowner’s negligence and implied warranty claims but the Court of Appeal reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Former Sponsor of the Lenox Facing Suit in Supreme Court

January 13, 2014 — Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFF
Lewis Futterman, former sponsor of the Lenox condominium in Harlem, New York, is being sued by the condo board for alleged “building code violations, construction defects, and fraud” according to New York Curbed. The residents claim that Futterman filed for bankruptcy in 2010 to avoid paying for repairs. The Lenox condo board filed suit in the New York Supreme Court last December 31st. The Lenox’s condo board claims that the building has “fundamental structural flaws, a defective roof and pervasive leakage,” reports Rowley Amato of New York Curbed. The board also claims the original offering plans were not the same as the units purchased by residents in 2006. Residents paid an estimated two hundred and sixty thousand to repair defects within the condominium, and they are pursuing a minimum of four million in damages. Katherine Clarke of The Real Deal stated that Futterman would only “say that the issue was between the residents and the construction company which built the project.” Read the full story at New York Curbed... Read the full story at The Real Deal... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the case Phillips v. Parmelee, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled “that an asbestos exclusion in a liability policy barred a duty to defend and indemnify a building seller for claims that the seller failed to disclose that the building contained asbestos,” according to an article in Mondaq by Ruth S. Kochenderfer and Deanna P. Cook, both from Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The policyholder received a building report stating that the “heating ducts likely contained asbestos,” however, the buyers alleged that the policyholder never provided them the report. After the buyers purchased the property, contractors “cut through the heating ducts, unknowingly dispersing asbestos throughout the building.” According to Kochenderfer and Cook’s article, “The insurer intervened in the buyers' suit and sought summary judgment against the policyholder and buyers, arguing that an asbestos exclusion precluded coverage for the buyers' suit against the policyholder.” The buyers took the case to the Wisconsin Supreme court and “attacked the asbestos exclusion,” but the court rejected every argument. Kochenderfer and Cook stated that the “decision is significant because three courts, including Wisconsin's highest court, squarely rejected attempts to narrow a broad, clearly-worded asbestos exclusion. Further, it confirms that such an asbestos exclusion will apply to all causes of action, including an alleged failure to disclose the presence of asbestos.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2022 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

September 13, 2021 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that three Partners have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. In addition, five attorneys have been included in the 2022 Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch list. These recognitions include attorneys from the firm’s Chicago, IL; Palm Beach Gardens, FL; and St. Petersburg, FL offices. 2022 Best Lawyers®

Brian C. Bassett – Insurance Law

Rina Clemens – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Scot E. Samis – Appellate Practice

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

Resolve to Say “No” This Year

January 26, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We hear all of the time how to “get to ‘yes'” and how doing so can lead to more business and of course more business leads to more profits. Purely logical, right? Without construction owners with work for general contractors to perform and general contractors hiring subcontractors to perform that work, construction grinds to a halt and clients and friends of mine in the construction industry don’t make money. For this to happen, “yes” has to happen more often than not. So, why the title of this post? Chalk it up to spending much if not all of my time as a construction attorney either anticipating or dealing with the Murphy’s Law ruled nature of the construction world or to the “Monday morning quarterback” nature of my profession, but I see numerous instances where not taking the job or signing the bad contract would have led to a better outcome than performing the work. What do I mean by this? I mean that as a construction company (particularly one that is lower down the “payment chain” and therefore less in control of the flow of money), you need to carefully evaluate not only the contract presented, but whether you get a good feeling about the party with whom you are contracting. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES