Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California
October 27, 2016 —
Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogAside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower.
The Lender-Borrower Relationship
As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation.
There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it.
After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors.
Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations.
Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.”
In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.”
The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal
June 15, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled in Lake Cumberland Community Action Agency v. CMW, Inc. affirming the arbitration award. CMW, Inc. was responsible for the construction of a facility to be used for pre-school students and the housing of Alzheimer patients and senior citizens. An agreement was made that any disputes would be heard by an arbitrator selected by the construction industry.
The plaintiff alleged that there were design and construction defects in the building trusses, violation of the Kentucky Building Code, and problems with the HVAC system. The arbitrator awarded $106,000 to the plaintiff which then sought to vacate the award. The circuit court upheld the arbitrator’s decision.
The Court of Appeals found that there was no basis for rejecting the arbitrator’s decision, noting “there is nothing to show that there was any fraud or bias on the part of the arbitrator.” The appeals court, with all three judges concurring, upheld the arbitration award.
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
EPA Issues New PFAS Standard, Provides $1B for Testing, Cleanup of 'Forever Chemicals'
April 29, 2024 —
Tom Ichniowski & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordThe Biden administration has announced a two-pronged initiative aimed to reduce exposure, through drinking water, to the “forever chemicals”—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and other health problems.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record and
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy
August 20, 2014 —
Mark Gilbert – BloombergThe two elements of the U.K. economy that the Bank of England currently finds most worrying are the overheating housing market and the paucity of wage growth. Earnings reports this week from two of the nation's biggest homebuilders make for cheery reading on both counts.
Persimmon Plc, the U.K.'s largest homebuilder by market value, said today it completed 6,408 new homes in the first half of the year, a 28 percent increase from the year-earlier period. Bovis Homes Group, which mostly builds what it calls "traditional" family homes in the south of England outside London, said it sold 1,487 new homes in the first six months, a gain of 54 percent.
"The government has told us that we need 230,000 new homes per annum, and far be it for us to disagree with that," Bovis Chief Executive Officer David Ritchie said on a conference call. He expects to build about 3,650 homes this year, and reckons that "5,000 to 6,000 homes per annum is a very sensible target for the business."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Gilbert, BloombergMr. Gilbert may be contacted at
magilbert@bloomberg.net
Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect
May 19, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFWSMV, Nashville reports that the ceiling collapse in a Franklin, Tennessee Kohl’s was attributed to a construction defect by fire officials. The officials noted that the ceiling was renovated at the time. No injuries were reported.
The report notes that “inspectors were supposed to look at the renovations next week, but fire officials said that will have to be delayed until another time.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses
June 01, 2020 —
Joseph M. Leone - ConsensusDocsAs everyone knows, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the construction industry due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schedules, productivity, safety processes, and seemingly everything else are being affected. In these difficult times, most contractors are making every effort to work together to solve the problems caused by COVID-19. But what happens when differences arise between project owners, contractors, and subcontractors as to the effect of COVID-19 on a project? One party may want to continue pushing the schedule, others may want to slow down, or, more likely, not be able to keep up with the original schedule because of some reason related to COVID-19. As between a prime contractor and a subcontractor, a mutual responsibility clause can provide some clarity or, unfortunately, depending on how the subcontract is written, confusion.
Almost all subcontracts have a clause which flows down the prime contractor’s obligations on a project to the subcontractor as applicable to the subcontractor’s work. Known as “flow-down” clauses, this clause works in one direction; obligations of the prime contractor “flow-down” to the Subcontractor. A mutual responsibility clause, in essence, works in both directions. The subcontractor is required to perform its obligations consistent with the prime contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor is granted the same rights against the prime contractor which the prime contractor has against the owner. Obligations flow down and rights flow up. The rights and obligations flowing through the prime contractor include, the obligation to perform the work in accordance with the plans and specifications, the obligation to meet the schedule constraints in the prime agreement, and the right to extensions of time and change orders to the extent the prime contractor obtains the same.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph M. Leone, Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLP Mr. Leone may be contacted at
jleone@dsvlaw.com
The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know
May 24, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Melissa Dewey Brumback. Melissa is a construction law attorney with Ragsdale Liggett in Raleigh, North Carolina. Aside from the fact that she is a UNC grad and fan, she’s okay!
In 2017, as it does every ten years, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) updated most of its standard form contract documents, including the A201 General Conditions. This cycle, the contract changes are evolutionary in nature, not revolutionary. Even so, it is crucial to know the changes to avoid making a fatal mistake that could cost you money on a construction project. In reverse order, the top 10 changes you need to know include:
# 10: Differing Site Conditions
Prior editions of the A201 provided that upon encountering differing site conditions, the Contractor was to promptly provide notice to the Owner and Architect, before the conditions are disturbed, and in no event later than 21 days after the conditions were first observed. A201–2017 shortens the time for notice from 21 to 14 days.
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
