Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.
The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”
With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.
The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”
In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.
The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”
The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”
In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does the Russia Ukraine War Lead to a Consideration in Your Construction Contracts?
April 04, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMaterial costs are still affecting the construction industry. Supply chain impacts too. The volatility started with COVID-19 (and, in certain cases, before with the imposition of tariffs) and has continued through present date.
But what about the war between Russia and Ukraine and the impact this has had or may have on the supply chain? I think the spillover from the war (with oil, gas, the energy sector, etc.), including the imposition of any sanctions, is not fully realized other than the concern exists in an economy that is already battling through material costs and supply chain disruptions.
How does this affect you?
It may not.
Or you may regularly enter into construction contracts in which you would be smart to address material costs and supply chain impacts. The reason being is that everything from a risk standpoint should begin with your construction contract. Not addressing an issue does not actually mitigate the risk. Confronting the issue does mitigate the risk because you are contractually addressing a concern and know where the other party stands relating to that concern so that business decisions can be made.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Action Needed: HB24-1230 Spells Trouble for Colorado Construction Industry and its Insurers
March 25, 2024 —
David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCIn an apparent gift to plaintiffs’ construction defect lawyers, Representatives Parenti and Bacon introduced House Bill 24-1230 on February 12, 2024. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and is scheduled for hearing on March 6th, during the afternoon session beginning at 1:30 pm. To date, the bill does not have any senate sponsors, perhaps because the senators are more interested in serving their constituents’ needs for attainable housing than in lining the pockets of their plaintiffs’ construction defect attorney friends.
According to the bill’s summary, HB 24-1230 contains the following provisions:
Current law declares void any express waivers of or limitations on the legal rights or remedies provided by the “Construction Defect Action Reform Act” or the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act.” Sections 1 and 4 make it a violation of the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act” to obtain or attempt to obtain a waiver or limitation that violates the aforementioned current law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement
December 02, 2019 —
K. Alexandra Byrd - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to.
The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee.
The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Byrd may be contacted by
kab@sdvlaw.com
More Money Down Adds to U.S. First-Time Buyer Blues: Economy
August 20, 2014 —
Michelle Jamrisko and Alexis Leondis – BloombergThe challenges facing prospective buyers of the least expensive homes in the U.S. are getting harder to overcome.
Already beset by stagnant wages, growing student debt and competition from investors who are snapping up listings, those looking to purchase moderately priced houses must also provide more cash up front. The median down payment for the cheapest 25 percent of properties sold in 2013 was $9,480 compared with $6,037 in 2007, the last year of the previous economic expansion, according to data from 25 of the largest metro areas compiled by brokerage firm Redfin Corp.
The higher bar is a symptom of still-tight credit that is crowding out first-time buyers even as interest rates remain near historical lows. Younger adults, who would normally be making initial forays into real estate, are among those most affected, weakening the foundations of the housing market and limiting its contribution to economic growth.
Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net; Ms. Leondis may be contacted at aleondis@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Jamrisko and Alexis Leondis, Bloomberg
Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract
October 26, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI know, you are likely surprised by the title of this post. You’ve read Construction Law Musings for a while now and know that as a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, I have advocated mediation as a great way to resolve your construction disputes short of the expensive and time consuming litigation process. Knowing all of this, you as a reader of this blog (thanks by the way) probably wonder why I think that a mandatory mediation clause may not be the best thing for your construction contracts. I can understand your possible confusion (particularly
in light of this post from @sethsmiley).
Please don’t take the headline as my suddenly taking a new view of mediation. Short of simply resolving the dispute between the parties to the construction contract, mediation still remains number one on my list of construction dispute resolution mechanisms. I still believe that it is useful even when a resolution is not met after a good faith attempt by both sides to come to a business agreement. However, I also believe that mediation works best when entered into voluntarily by the parties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation
May 04, 2020 —
Tara C. Dudum - Newmeyer Dillion“We are at this point truly with no guidance in history, law, or precedent. To say that there is no playbook is a gross understatement of the situation.”
-Chief Justice and Chair of the California Judicial Council, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
Seeking to sustain essential court services while balancing weighty considerations, including litigants’ due process rights, access to justice, and stringent health and safety orders, the California Judicial Council has adopted Emergency Rules in response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19).
While many of the Emergency Rules focus on criminal and juvenile dependency matters, this update highlights the Emergency Rules immediately impacting civil litigation in California state courts. The following Emergency Rules remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor lifts the state of emergency or the rule is amended or repealed by the Judicial Council:
Tolling of Statutes of Limitation in Civil Actions
Effective April 6, 2020, the statutes of limitation (the time period in which to bring a claim) for all civil causes of action is tolled until such time as the rule is no longer in effect. The impact of this rule is that it provides plaintiffs with more time to bring claims and extends the time period that defendants may face legal action for alleged violations of the law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tara C. Dudum, Newmeyer DillionMs. Dudum may be contacted at
tara.dudum@ndlf.com
Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee
May 10, 2013 —
David M. McLainOn April 17, 2013, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee voted, along party lines, to postpone indefinitely SB 52. Here is a link to the Denver Business Journal's story regarding the bill and its untimely demise: "Lawmakers kill lawsuit limits on condo defects."
Unfortunately, it will be at least another year before the legislature will have the ability to provide some much needed relief to the Colorado construction industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLainMr. McLain can be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
