Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are times where being too darn cute with your pleading allegations is unnecessary and does not work. But, the point is really that the cuteness is unnecessary. In a Miller Act payment bond dispute in Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc., 2018 WL 2387833 (N.D.Cal. 2018), a claimant asserted claims against a Miller Act payment bond surety for breach of the payment bond, breach of a subcontract, open account, and account stated. The question is why would the claimant sue the payment bond surety for breach of subcontract (when the subcontract was not with the surety), and open account and account stated. I have no clue, other than such claims appeared quite unnecessary when the claimant asserted an action on the Miller Act payment bond (which is what the surety is liable under — actions under the statutory payment bond). Such claims were dismissed. And, they should have been. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

June 26, 2023 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is excited to announce Partner Courtney Serrato and Associates Andrew Arakelian, Pamchal Deylami, and Brian Taylor have been selected in the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list as Rising Stars for their work in Family Law and Civil Litigation. To read Super Lawyers’ digital publication, please click here. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The objective of Super Lawyers’ patented multiphase selection process is to create a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. Please join us in congratulating Courtney, Andrew, Pamchal, and Brian on achieving this level of recognition! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Now Available: Seyfarth’s 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide (2023-2024 Edition)

December 23, 2023 — Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth’s Construction team is pleased to announce the release of our 2023-2024 edition of the 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide. The Guide provides the general time requirements for filing lien notices in each state, plus Washington, DC. Reprinted courtesy of Seyfarth Shaw LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

July 30, 2015 — William L. Porter – The Porter Law Group Bulletin
Federal public work construction projects are unique in that there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available. Furthermore, although a remedy is available by proceeding against the original contractor’s payment bond under a federal law known as the “Miller Act” and its corresponding Federal Regulations (40 USCS 3131 et seq. and 48 CFR 28.101-1 et seq.), this remedy is not available to all subcontractors or suppliers. In addition, there are circumstances where a different form of security can be substituted for the payment bond (40 USCS 3131(b)(2)). Among those who generally cannot sue on the Miller Act Payment Bond are third-tier subcontractors and suppliers to suppliers. (See J.W. Bateson Company v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586 (1978)). As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor may bring a lawsuit against the bond company providing the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first tier subcontractor may bring such an action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Golf Resorts Offering Yoga, Hovercraft Rides to the Green

June 18, 2014 — Nadja Brandt – Bloomberg
Florida’s Woodmont Country Club, which once boasted 1,200 members, has been hit hard in the past decade as hurricanes and then the recession kept golfers away. Now the club’s owner is adding conference space, stores, restaurants, a spa and a hotel as part of a planned revival. About $100 million will be spent on the revamp of the property in Tamarac, about 14 miles (23 kilometers) northwest of Fort Lauderdale, owner Mark Schmidt said. After years of negotiations with local authorities, he expects to receive approval this month for the planned Woodmont improvements. While tennis courts and swimming pools have long had a place at golf clubs, a growing number of course owners are embracing mixed-use real estate, a concept more often used in urban developments to hedge risk and diversify returns. Property investors are adding everything from medical facilities to amphitheaters and hovercraft operations to increase revenue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net

Home Building on the Upswing in Bakersfield

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Low inventories and low mortgage rates are leading developers to build new homes in Bakersfield, California. According to KGET, home permits are up forty-five percent over last April. In one development, a street of six homes all sold on the same day. Indications are also that people who lost their homes during the bust are entering homeownership again. Prices are also up. A year ago, the average home sale price was $145,000. Now it’s $250,000. Oh, and that development where they sold six homes in a day? The next phase of development goes on sale in May. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act

June 13, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Yesterday, Governor Tom Wolf signed into law House Bill 566 which make major changes to Pennsylvania’s Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. Owners and General Contractors that fail to take head of the changes could face significant financial consequences. The Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, known as CAPSA or simply the Payment Act, was passed into law in 1994. The intent was “to cure abuses within the building industry involving payments due from owners to contractors, contractors to subcontractors, and subcontractors to other subcontractors.” Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P., 984 A.2d 497, 500 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). In reality, abuses still occurred. While the Payment Act purportedly dictated a statutory right to payment within a certain amount of time and imposes stiff penalties for failure make payment, including 1% interest per month, 1% penalty per month, and reasonable attorneys fees, the language of the Payment Act left recalcitrant contractors with wiggle room. Particularly, the Payment Act allowed owners and higher tier subcontractors to withhold payment “deficiency items according to the terms of the construction contract” provided it notified the contractor “of the deficiency item within seven calendar days of the date that the invoice is received.” 73 P.S. Section 506. The problem was that the Payment Act did not expressly state where the notice must be in written, what it must say, and what happened if notice was not given. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

January 05, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
On October 27, 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals determined whether the Dormancy Statute, which bars the enforcement of judgments after seven years, applied to a lienholder’s action to foreclose its lien. A property owner (“Owner”), contracted with a contractor Contractor (“Contractor”) to build a home in January 2006. Contractor purchased building materials from a supplier (“Supplier”). In September 2006, Contractor failed to pay for the materials, and Supplier filed a lien on Owner’s property in November 2006. Supplier filed a claim of lien and instituted a lien action against Contractor. In March 2007, a default judgment was entered in favor of Supplier for the lien amount. It was not until November 2014 that Supplier sued Owner, seeking a declaration of a special lien in the amount of $14,655.65. The trial court granted Supplier’s motion for summary judgment and awarded Supplier a special lien in the amount of $14,655.65 plus $8,305 in accrued interest. Owner appealed, arguing that the lien was rendered unenforceable by the Dormancy Statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES