Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated
April 26, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorezCDJ STAFFDecision Affirmed in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the trial court in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate. In the trial case, Central Arkansas Foundation Homes (CAFH) sought payment for a home built for Choate, while Choate alleged that the builders committed multiple construction defects including using the wrong foundation materials and positioning the house in the wrong direction.
After the house was built, CAFH contacted Choate regarding payment, however, Choate alleged that the finished product did not match the contract. “ After CAFH completed construction, it obtained permanent home financing for Choate and tried to contact her to close the transaction. Choate did not respond until October 2005, when she sent CAFH a list of alleged construction defects, including that the house was facing in the wrong direction; that it was not built on a slab; and that the fireplace, garbage disposal, driveway, and storage area were missing. CAFH replied to Choate in writing, telling her that she had until January 6, 2006, to close on the house or CAFH would sell it. The correspondence enclosed worksheets showing that the amount Choate would owe at closing exceeded $94,000, which included interest that had accrued on the as-yet unpaid construction loan.”
Initially, the court found in favor of CAFH. “On April 18, 2007, Choate’s attorney withdrew from representing her. Soon thereafter, CAFH’s attorney asked the court to set a final hearing on the case. The attorney purportedly sent Choate a letter by regular mail on May 15, 2007, advising her that the case was set for trial on July 9, 2007. Choate, however, did not appear. CAFH did appear, and its general manager, John Oldner, testified to events leading up to the case and the amount of damages claimed. According to Oldner, the interest on the construction loan had accrued to the point that CAFH now sought $104,965.88 from Choate. The court found in favor of CAFH and entered judgment for that amount, plus attorney fees, on July 18, 2007. The court ruled that CAFH could sell the house and either remit any excess to Choate or look to Choate for the deficiency if the sales price did not cover the judgment.”
However, Choate successfully argued that she did not receive notice of the trial. A new trial was ordered, and the outcome was quite different. “On June 6, 2008, the circuit court entered judgment for Choate, ruling that the house was not in substantial compliance with the parties’ contract and that the contract should be rescinded. The court found that the house suffered from numerous construction defects, that the contract contemplated a slab rather than a concrete-pier foundation, and that CAFH ignored Choate’s complaints that the house was facing the wrong way. The judgment directed CAFH to hold Choate harmless on the construction loan, to deed Choate’s two acres back to her, and to remove the house from Choate’s property.”
The Court of Appeals “found that Choate would be unjustly enriched by retaining the benefit of the septic systems and utility lines that CAFH installed on her land. The court therefore awarded $5340 to CAFH as a quantum-meruit recovery for the value of that work. CAFH contends that the award is not sufficient, but we see no clear error.” In the end, the Court of Appeals provided this reason for declining to reverse the trial court’s decision: “The court in this case apparently concluded that the house constructed by CAFH was so fundamentally at odds with Choate’s contractual expectations that she was not unjustly enriched and should simply be, as nearly as possible, returned to the status quo ante. Accordingly, the court ordered the house removed from her property and permitted CAFH to either relocate the house or salvage the house’s materials and unused appliances. We decline to reverse the court’s weighing of the equities in this manner.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?
November 15, 2021 —
Colin Holley - ConsensusDocsThere are four main types of intellectual property (IP) – patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. Many companies have IP rights of all four types. Very different steps are required to protect different types of IP. Your company should work with an experienced IP attorney to develop and continuously update a comprehensive IP protection plan. And for the reasons discussed below, it is important for your company’s IP protection plan to be closely coordinated with employment and contracting practices.
Patents are rights that may be granted to protect uniquely-original and usable inventions for a prescribed period of years, the length of which depends on the patent type. To register a patent, an application must be filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which will decide whether the invention is patentable. A registration gives the owner the ability to prevent others from using or selling the invention without permission. Registered patents may be challenged in court on several grounds, but mounting a successful challenge is a very expensive proposition. A patent registration is thus a highly valued asset and is key to preventing others from using or copying your invention, unless you have a foolproof way to keep your invention secret and out of the hands of competitors. On the other hand, if it is possible to keep the invention secret for enough time to gain a commercial advantage over competitors and the enforceability of the patent is questionable, registering a patent may be a mistake because the invention must be publicly disclosed in excruciating detail, for all competitors to see.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colin Holley, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLPMr. Holley may be contacted at
cholley@watttieder.com
California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill
September 25, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogCalifornia voters will get to vote on November 6, 2018 on a ballot initiative to repeal an infrastructure funding bill signed by Governor Brown this past year that is estimated to raise more than $5 billion annually during the next ten years for road repairs and mass transit improvements in California.
In 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which increased the excise tax on gasoline in the state by 12 cents per gallon, to 30 cents per gallon, and increasing vehicle registration fees from $25 to $175 dollars depending on the value of the vehicle. The last time the state’s gas tax was increased was in 1994 and the last time the federal gas tax was increased was in 1993.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action
August 03, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer.
After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions.
The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted
June 29, 2020 —
Jacob W. Scott - Smith CurrieOn June 5, 2020, the President signed into law the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020, amending portions of the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Most importantly, the PPP Flexibility Act adjusted the forgiveness requirements for PPP loans.
The CARES Act allowed borrowers to apply for forgiveness of loan amounts used for payroll and other covered costs during an eight-week period beginning on the date of origination, or by June 30, 2020, whichever came first. The CARES Act also allowed borrowers to use the loan funds by June 30 to restore employee and payroll levels that had been reduced as a result of COVID-19. The Small Business Administration instructed borrowers that at least 75% of the loan funds had to be used to cover payroll costs during the covered period to be eligible for forgiveness.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jacob W. Scott, Smith CurrieMr. Scott may be contacted at
jwscott@smithcurrie.com
Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation
February 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn Lexology, Stephen M. Prignano and Nora A. Valenza-Frost of Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP examined recent case law and litigation to discuss whether or not construction defects are construed as an occurrence in the current legal climate.
Prignano and Valenza-Frost stated, “The determination of whether there is coverage under a CGL policy for a construction defect claim requires an insurer to carefully examine the law of the relevant jurisdiction. Courts and legislatures continue to reach different conclusions respecting coverage, and some states have a more well-developed body of law on these issues than others.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!
May 30, 2022 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBWB&O Partner Tyler D. Offenhauser and Senior Associate Kevin B. Wheeler prevailed on their Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) on behalf of a public entity, the City of Murrieta Fire Department today!
As a matter of background, authorities were first called to a residence in Murrieta after a report of a gas line rupture. Firefighters and Southern California Gas Company responded to the call. As a crew from SoCalGas was trying to shut off the gas an explosion happened, leveling the home and killing 31-year-old SoCalGas employee Wade Kilpatrick. 30 surrounding homeowners have now alleged personal injuries, including TBI, as a result of the explosion. News agencies reported that Plaintiff Anthony Borel sustained a severe head injury and was placed in a coma. Plaintiff’s injuries included an epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, bilateral corneal abrasions, right orbital fracture, right temporal fracture, right maxillary fracture, frontal skull fracture, 18% partial-thickness burns to the face, abdomen, arms and legs, and a severe TBI with cognitive deficiencies. Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $20,000,000.00.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction
May 20, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorOn May 1, OSHA announced its final rules for construction workers in confined spaces. The Final Rules, which will take effect August 3, 2015, will require more comprehensive training , with the goal of providing construction workers the same or similar protections as employees in manufacturing and general industry.
The final rule will cover confined spaces such as:
- Crawl spaces
- Manholes
- Tanks
- Sewers
The final rule will require the following:
- Confined spaces must be large enough for an employee to enter and have a means of exiting.
- The air in confined spaces must be tested before workers enter them to ensure that the air is safe.
- Construction workers must share safety information with others when they are going to work in enclosed/confined spaces.
- Hazards associated with confined spaces must be continuously monitored and abated to the extent possible.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
