SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?

December 29, 2020 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable? In general, the answer to the above questions is “Yes”, but only if you meet the following requirements:

1. You must only release the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien: There is an important distinction to be made between releasing a mechanics lien and releasing the right to a mechanics lien. Whether you do one or the other will depend on the specific language used in your release. In the case of Santa Clara Land Title Co. v. Nowack and Associates, Inc. (1991) 226 Cal. App.3d, 1558 a “release of mechanics lien” document was recorded TO THE County Recorder’s office which included a statement that the mechanics lien was “fully satisfied, released and discharged”. Based on this language, the court concluded that the mechanics lien claimant had waived its “right” to a further mechanics lien on the same property for the work in question. The court concluded that since the release stated that the claim was “fully satisfied” the right to mechanics lien on the project had forever been waived. The Nowak case can be distinguished from the case of Koudmani v. Ogle Enterprises, Inc., (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1650, where the release of mechanics lien only stated that the mechanics lien was “otherwise released and discharged” and not that it was “satisfied”. Based on the distinction drawn from the two cases, a simple mechanics lien release that only releases the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien should be used. At the following link you will find a proper form to achieve this purpose: https://www.porterlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/03PRI-Mechanics-Lien-Release.pdf

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Homebuilder Predictions for Tallahassee

October 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The cost of putting up a new home in Tallahassee has risen, but Joe Manausa thinks that builders might be putting up homes that will cost more than home buyers are able to pay. He notes that permits and sales are up, but numbers are still well below those in 2006. Mr. Manusa thinks that Tallahassee could face “a need (demand) for homes priced below $300,000, but a glut of supply for those priced above $300,000.” He says that home builders “need to target construction opportunities below that price point.” He notes that average price of new construction is $272,000, but resales are going for $161,000, which puts quite a premium on a new home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

November 10, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
For a number of years we have been honored to be asked by California’s Continuing Education of the Bar (“CEB”) to serve as update authors for several of their well-regarded construction and real estate practice books. Updates to two of those books were published in October and November:

• The 2016 Update to the CEB’s California Mechanics Liens and Related Construction Remedies was published in October. Covering both private and public works, the practice guide details the statutory payment remedies for unpaid work, including, mechanics liens, stop payment notices and construction bonds. Wendel Rosen served as update author for Chapters 2 and 3 which covers private works projects.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

February 15, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
A Superior Court in California overruled the insurer's demurrer to the policy holder's complaint seeking business interruption coverage after government shutdown orders were issued because of the coronavirus pandemic. Goodwill Industries of Orange County, California v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., Cal. Superior Ct., Civil No. 30-2020-01169032-CU-IC-CXC (Minute Order Jan. 28,, 2021). The minute order is here [Goodwill Decision]. The insurer demurred on the ground that the insured had not alleged sufficient facts to show "direct physical loss" under the business income, extra expenses and civil authority provisions in the policy because coronavirus and COVID-19 did not physically alter the structure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

February 10, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii


The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, contending it had no obligation to defend two related underlying construction defect cases. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. R.L.Lantana Boatyard, Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2466 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2012).



An engineering report noted design construction defects and deficiencies in visible, physical improvements at The Moorings at Lantana Condominium. In two lawsuits, The Moorings sued the developer, R.L. Lantana Boatyard ("RLLB"), and the contractor, Current Builders of Florida.



Current Builders was insured by Amerisure. RLLB was named as an additional insured under the Amerisure policy.

Read the full story…

  

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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


---

HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

February 26, 2024 — Jennifer Brockel - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
HB24-1014 stands to eliminate the longstanding public impact requirement found within C.R.S. § 6-1-105(2) of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). While this proposed change professes the noblest intentions of “public peace, health or safety,” its effect portends a large detriment to Colorado business and an astronomical payday for Colorado plaintiffs’ attorneys. Brief History For over 100 years, Colorado recognized the need to protect its citizens from deceptive trade practices through a mechanism akin to the Federal Trade Commission Act that preceded it. In 1915, Colorado passed legislation prohibiting “untrue, deceptive, or misleading” advertising. C.L. 1921 § 6942 evolved into the broader protections afforded in the more recent consumer protection law from 1969 that prohibited “deceptive trade practices, and included protections from unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive acts or practices.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Brockel, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Brockel may be contacted at brockel@hhmrlaw.com

---

Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Attorneys for Traub Liberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP (in JD Supra Business Advisor), discussed how state courts have come to different conclusions as to “whether a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited residence can recover contract damages from a builder or general contractor for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” Recently, a Pennsylvania “sided with the builder, holding that the implied warranty of habitability was grounded in contract law. Thus, the Court reasoned that an action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability required a showing of contractual privity between the parties. Because there was no contractual privity between the Conways and the builder, the Conways could not pursue an action against the builder based on a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” However, other state courts have made other conclusions. “Iowa permits an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike construction by subsequent purchasers and does not require a showing of contractual privity. Rhode Island also does not require contractual privity, but limits liability to latent defects discovered within 10 years of construction.” Vermont and Connecticut, however, require contract privity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

March 31, 2014 — Michelle Coburn and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLP
In Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the longstanding statutory employer doctrine and related five-part test of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co. In doing so, the court overruled the Superior Court and held that Worthington was immune from tort liability as the statutory employer of plaintiff Earl Patton. Worthington was the general contractor for a project to construct an addition to a church. Worthington subcontracted with Patton Construction, Inc. to perform carpentry work. Earl Patton was an employee and the sole owner of Patton Construction, Inc. He was injured in a scissor lift accident while performing work on the church. Patton sued Worthington alleging failure to maintain safe conditions at the worksite. After a trial, a jury awarded Patton and his wife a little more than $1.5 million in damages. Before trial, Worthington had moved for summary judgment arguing that it was Patton’s statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Under that law, general contractors are secondarily liable for payment of workers’ compensation benefits to employees of subcontractors. Like traditional employers, statutory employers are immune from tort liability for work-related injuries in situations where they are secondarily liable for workers’ compensation payments. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Coburn, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Ms. Coburn may be contacted at coburnm@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---