Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

The Simple Reason Millennials Aren't Moving Out Of Their Parents' Homes: They're Crushed By Debt

February 26, 2015 — Nina Glinski – Bloomberg
Millennials are not budging from their parents' basements, even though the job market is on the mend. One really big reason? Student loans. Last year, the rate of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home rose to 17.7 percent among men and 11.7 percent for women, Census data showed last week. That is a record high for both genders. Rising co-residence rates are correlated more closely with student debt than with factors like economic conditions and the housing market, according to a staff report in November from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The regional bank wrote about the trend today in its blog called "Liberty Street Economics." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nina Glinski, Bloomberg

Parking Reform Takes Off on the West Coast

January 23, 2023 — Allan Van Vliet - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Starting January 1, 2023, real estate developers in Oregon and California will no longer be required to build off-street parking facilities for certain projects located near public transit. Both states enacted new rules during the course of 2022 which are effective as of the beginning of 2023, and which seek to reduce the costs of building at least some new projects in major population centers. In California, A.B. 2097 was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September, and prohibits city governments throughout the state (including in charter cities) from enforcing any local land use provisions which would require the developer to build parking spaces as part of their project if the project is located within one half-mile of a major public transit stop. The law applies to both residential and commercial projects. Cities can continue mandating parking for individual projects if they find that doing so is important to support the development of affordable housing—this exception was added to allay concerns that the bill would undermine “density bonus” programs which have become an important tool for the promotion of new affordable housing development around the state. In Oregon, following a 2020 executive order by Governor Kate Brown, the state Land Conservation and Development Commission (the body responsible for land use and planning regulation in Oregon) embarked on a two-year rulemaking process which culminated in July of 2022 with the approval of a set of “Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules.” Like the California legislation, these rules (in part) limit the ability of Oregon’s most populous cities to enforce parking minimums for new development projects. Unlike the California law, the Oregon rules encourage cities simply to repeal their parking mandates entirely. Cities subject the new rules which choose not to repeal their parking mandates in full must, as an alternative, adopt new local policies to reduce the amount of land dedicated to parking in certain geographies or in connection with certain uses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Allan Van Vliet, Pillsbury
Mr. Van Vliet may be contacted at allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com

Statute of Limitations and Bad Faith Claims: Factors to Consider

May 16, 2022 — Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
How much time do our clients have to bring a bad faith action against an insurer? Although we are not frequently asked this question, it is one that we constantly analyze before asserting a bad faith claim. To answer this question, we look to the statute of limitations, which is a law passed by a state legislative body that sets the maximum amount of time for a party to bring a claim based upon a particular cause of action. For policyholders, knowing which statute of limitations applies to their bad faith claim is critical because it indicates whether it is possible to initiate legal proceedings. In addition, it determines the amount in damages available in case of a successful resolution. Statute of Limitations in Breach of Contract vs. Tort Claims One key determinant of a statute of limitations for bad faith is whether the claim is brought as a tort or a breach of contract action. The consequence of framing bad faith as a tort is that a policyholder is not just limited to contract damages. The policyholder can also receive recourse for emotional distress, pain, suffering, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other damages that the court may consider appropriate. Unfortunately, however, not every jurisdiction allows plaintiffs to bring bad faith actions as tort claims. While, for example, courts in California, Colorado, and Connecticut allow bad faith claims sounding in tort, courts in jurisdictions such as Tennessee do not. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com

Ex-Turner Exec Gets 46 Months for Bloomberg Construction Bribes

July 11, 2021 — Eydie Cubarrubia - Engineering News-Record
A third New York City-based construction executive was sentenced to federal prison June 15, receiving 46 months, as part of the $15-million bribery scheme involving interiors work for financial giant Bloomberg LLP at its Manhattan headquarters. Reprinted courtesy of Eydie Cubarrubia, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cubarrubia may be contacted at cubarrubiae@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

June 25, 2019 — John Bolesta & Keahn Morris - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
It is unlawful for unions to secondarily picket construction sites or to coercively enmesh neutral parties in the disputes that a union may have with another employer. This area of the law is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the federal law that regulates union-management relations and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the federal administrative agency that is tasked with enforcing the NLRA. But NLRB decisions issued during the Obama administration have allowed a union to secondarily demonstrate at job sites and to publicize their beefs over the use of non-union contractors there, provided the union does not actually “picket” the site. In those decisions, the NLRB narrowed its definition of unlawful “picketing,” thereby, limiting the scope of unlawful activity prohibited by law. Included in such permissible nonpicketing secondary activity is the use of stationary banners or signs and the use of inflatable effigies, typically blow-up rats or cats, designed to capture the public’s attention at an offending employer’s job site or facilities. A recently released NLRB advice memo, however, signals the likely reversal of those earlier decisions and that contractors and owners may now be able to stop such harassing union job site tactics simply by filing a secondary boycott unfair labor practice change with the NLRB. The 18 page memo, dated December 20, 2018 (and released to the public on May 14, 2019), directs the NLRB’s Region 13 to issue a complaint against the Electrician’s Union in a dispute coming out of Chicago where the union erected a large, inflatable effigy, a cat clutching a construction worker by the neck, and posted a large stationary banner proclaiming its dispute to be with the job’s general contractor over the use of a non-union electrical sub at the job site’s entrance. Though not an official Board decision, the memo suggests the NLRB General Counsel’s (GC) belief that the earlier Obama era decisions may have been wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by the NLRB on the theories that the Union’s nonpicketing conduct was tantamount to unlawful secondary picketing, that it constituted “signal” picketing that unlawfully induced or encouraged the employees of others to cease working with the subs or that it constituted unlawful coercion. Reprinted courtesy of John Bolesta, Sheppard Mullin and Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

June 28, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Termination for convenience provisions are important provisions to include in construction contracts. These are provisions that allow a party to terminate the contract for ANY REASON. No cause is needed to exercise the termination for convenience provision. In other words, the terminating party does not have to demonstrate the other party breached the contract. A termination for convenience can be exercised “just because.” Typically, the party providing the service should not get to terminate for convenience. However, the party receiving the service will want to be afforded this contractual right. For example, an owner (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision with its prime contractor (providing a service). And, a general contractor (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision in its subcontract with its subcontractor (providing a service). However, a general contractor providing a service for an owner, or a subcontractor providing a service to a general contractor, should not be able to terminate the contract for their convenience “just because” a better opportunity comes along. 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

Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Writing on the Sheppard Mullin web site, Scott Hennigh looks at the implications of the 2012 California case Axis Surplus Insurance. A condominium complex was covered by two insurance policies, covering different time periods. During a construction defect claim, one insurer argued that the claim was not covered. The other insurer settled and sued that both needed to contribute to the settlement. The court held that when multiple insurers are in conflict, the burden to prove that coverage does not exist lies solely on the party claiming it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

#5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper analyzed the above mentioned Belasco case, in which “the Second District Court of Appeal made clear that settlement agreements containing waviers of unknown claims in connection with a construction of a property, absent fraud or misrepresentation, will be upheld.” Glucksman, et al. explained that “the homeowner plaintiff had made a claim against the builder pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 896 (“Right to Repair”) and settled for a cash payment and obtained a Release of all Claims including for all known and unknown claims. The court held that homeowner’s subsequent construction defect claim was barred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the earlier release.” Read the full story... In another article on the subject, Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler of White and Williams LLP concluded, “The Court of Appeal’s holding establishes that, despite the prohibition against the release of unknown claims set forth in section 1524 and the protections provided to homeowners by the Right to Repair Act, California homeowners can, in fact, release or waive claims against homebuilders for future, latent construction defects. To release or waive such claims, the language of any settlement agreement should be unequivocal.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES