Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure
September 15, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsAs longtime (or new readers for that matter) know, mechanic’s liens are near and dear to my heart here at Construction Law Musings. These powerful tools to collect for your hard work on a construction project are great when prepared and recorded in the very specific fashion required by the Virginia legislature and courts. In most situations, if done properly, a mechanic’s lien gives you some security and priority for your construction claim that you would not have with a simple judgment lien.
Despite the power of a properly perfected and enforced mechanic’s lien (and the fact that the end result of a full mechanic’s lien suit that remains unsettled is in fact a foreclosure), a recent case in the Eastern District of Virginia, Weinberg v. J.P. Morgan Chase, et. al., (thanks for the head’s up on this case to the folks at the Construction Payment Blog) held that under Virginia statute mechanic’s lien holders are not entitled to notice of foreclosure. In the Weinberg case, the plaintiff, a pro se lien claimant that recorded two different liens, one pre-foreclosure and one post-foreclosure, and who had not received notice of the intervening foreclosure, argued, among other things, that he should have been given notice of the foreclosure on the deed of trust on the property by J. P. Morgan Chase.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana
November 15, 2021 —
Rafael Boza - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogHaving your Contractor’s License up and running to perform work when needed, where needed, is an indispensable compliance matter that contractors face every year. However, this indispensable process may also be cumbersome and time consuming. Knowing the regulations applicable to your business in each state and what to do, how to do it, and when to do it, is of critical importance to maintain compliance and your ability to work in different states.
In this post we will do a high-level review of reporting obligations in California and Louisiana.
California’s
Contractors’ State License Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq., requires licensees to report various information to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) “within 90 days” of the effective date or event. Louisiana State
Licensing Laws and Regulations, R.S. §§ 37:24 et seq. and La. Admin. Code tit. 46, XXIX, §§ 101 et seq. also require similar reporting to the Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors (LSLBC), sometimes “within 15 days” of the event.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rafael Boza, PillsburyMr. Boza may be contacted at
rafael.boza@pillsburylaw.com
Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”
The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”
D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:
“(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”
The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.
The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.
Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.
The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action
October 04, 2021 —
Jatin Patel - Newmeyer DillionIt has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend. Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty to defend. Recently, a Federal District Court issued a reminder to a wayward insurer.
In Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc., v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2021, No. C 20-07376 WHA, 2021 WL 4221747 (“Pacific”)), the Court was asked to assess whether a tender of defense by a concrete masonry subcontractor to its insurer for a construction defect action required a defense. Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc. (“PBM”) installed concrete masonry units (also known as “CMUs”) at a new retail shopping center in Oakland, California. The subsequent owner of the retail center filed suit against the general contractor for alleged construction defects, including “efflorescence of roof deck at CMU wall” and “improper waterproofing and flashing of the CMU block wall." The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against PBM.
PBM tendered the defense of the case to Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”) along with copies of a preliminary defect list, a description of defects, interrogatory responses and an expert witness damage analysis. Navigators denied coverage and a duty to defend citing to the work product exclusion of the policy. PBM asked Navigators to reconsider. Navigators held firm on its denial. Two years later, PBM filed suit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jatin Patel, Newmeyer DillionMr. Patel may be contacted at
jatin.patel@ndlf.com
Burden of Proof Under All-Risk Property Insurance Policy
January 31, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Florida case, Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D164a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discusses the burden of proof of an insured in establishing coverage under an all-risk property insurance policy. Getting right to this critical point, the court explained the burden of proof as follows:
1. The insured has the initial burden of proof to establish that the damage at issue occurred during a period in which the damaged property had insurance coverage. If the insured fails to meet this burden, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insurer.
–
2. If the insured’s initial burden is met, the burden of proof shifts to the insurer to establish that (a) there was a sole cause of the loss, or (b) in cases where there was more than one cause, there was an “efficient proximate cause” of the loss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
The Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction Disputes
October 03, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHere is a quote from a judge in an order after the bench trial of a complex construction dispute between a prime contractor and subcontractor on a federal project:
The evidence received in this case demonstrates the dynamic nature of complicated construction projects. At every step, the details matter, and coordination and cooperation among the companies tasked with performing the job is essential. Thankfully, as even this case shows, most disagreements that arise as projects evolve are handled during construction, far away from a courthouse, by the professionals who know best how to achieve the ultimate goal of a completed project.
U.S. f/u/b/o McKenney’s, Inc. v. Leebcor Services, LLC, 2022 WL 3549980, *1 (E.D. Va. 2022).
This is a true statement. A statement that parties should remember as they navigate the nuances of a complicated construction project and dispute.
The facts of the case, however, would hardly be construed as a win for either party. Something else for parties to consider as they navigate the nuances of a complicated construction project and dispute.
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
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
August 06, 2019 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupThe “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Non-Responsibility will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale
May 07, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogYou might remember the 2009 Pixar/Disney 3-D animated movie “Up,” about an aging widower, Carl Frederickson, who learns to let go of his past and live his dream of moving he and his beloved late wife’s “clubhouse” to a cliff overlooking Paradise Falls in Venezuela where the once young couple’s hero, Charles Muntz, a famous but now disgraced explorer, was said to have discovered the skeleton of a rare bird which skeptics alleged was fabricated.
In the movie, the “clubhouse” is integral to the plot. In the opening scenes of the movie the audience learns that the clubhouse, which had been Mr. Frederickson’s deceased wife’s clubhouse that the couple later turned into their home, is sitting in the middle of a construction zone because old Mr. Frederickson has refused to sell his house to a developer who has proceeded to build around his house anyway. When a large loader knocks over his mailbox and a construction worker tries to fix it, Mr. Frederickson struggles with the worker not wanting him to touch any of his memories, and in the process inadvertently strikes the man with his cane. Later, in court, Mr. Frederickson learns that he has to leave the house and go to a retirement home. Apparently, justice is quick and decisive in their town. However, instead of going to a retirement home peaceably, codgy Mr. Frederickson rigs the clubhouse with thousands of balloons and proceeds to fly away, home and all. And, so the movie begins.
Soon, however, what some have called the real life “Up house” will be sold. And the story behind the house is about as a interesting as its movie counterpart. And, because we lawyers are into disclosures, I will disclose that “counterpart” is more accurate than “adaption,” since the movie Up was in production before the events giving rise to the real life Up house took place.
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
