Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy
April 28, 2016 —
Renata L. Hoddinott & David W. Evans – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Scheer v. The State Bar of California (4/14/16 – Case no. 2:14-cv-04829-JFW) reversed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s decision that a suspended attorney’s debt was nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).
In Scheer, the client (Clark) retained attorney Scheer to help modify his home mortgage loan. Clark paid Scheer $5,500 before any modification occurred. Clark then fired Scheer and sought return of the $5,500 under California’s mandatory attorney fee dispute arbitration program. An arbitrator concluded that, although Scheer performed competently, she violated California Civil Code §2944.7(a) by receiving advance fees for residential mortgage modification services. Although the arbitrator believed that Scheer’s violations were neither willful nor malicious, he concluded California law required a full refund of the improperly collected fees. Scheer made a few payments against the arbitration award but, claiming a lack of funds, failed to pay the outstanding balance.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Are We Headed for a Work Shortage?
June 17, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorA recent Wall Street Journal article, Worker Shortage Hammers Builders, noted that construction industry employers are facing a tight labor market.
“U.S. builders shed more than 2 million jobs during and after the housing bust. Now they say they can’t find enough carpenters, electricians, plumbers and other craftsmen for a growing pipeline of work.”
That is certainly consistent with everything that I’ve heard and read about construction companies in the Midwest. Unfortunately, it seems as though the problem is only going to get worse.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here
June 05, 2017 —
Ivo G. Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP News AlertIt is paramount that a contractor diligently maintains its license prior to and during the performance of any contract work. Failure to do so could result in barring a contractor from receiving payment and/or disgorgement of profits received under the construction contract.
California Business and Professions Code section 7031 is part of the Contractors State License Law (Business & Prof. section 700 et seq.), and is both feared and loathed by all contractors performing work in the state of California. This draconian statute is known as the “Shield” and was enacted over 70 years ago for the singular purpose to bar all actions by contractors seeking compensation for unlicensed contract work – even precluding a contractor from enforcing his or her mechanic’s lien rights. However, a contractor could potentially avoid the harshness of B&P 7031 by establishing that he or she had substantially complied with the appropriate licensing requirements.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 2017 AMENDMENT
The substantial compliance exception is found in section B&P 7031(e), which authorizes the court to determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements, if the contractor has shown at an evidentiary hearing that he or she engaged in the unlicensed work had:
- Been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract;
- Acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain the license;
- Did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not licensed when he or she performed the work; and
- Acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate the license once it learned the license had lapsed.
Although not impossible, satisfying all four requirements of the exception was challenging for the contractor, specifically, requirement # (3) – the lack of knowledge that he or she was unlicensed during performance of work.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE POST 2017
Fortunately, Governor Brown heard the collective cry for relief and signed Assembly Bill 1793 (“AB 1793”) into law. The new bill revises the criteria for the court to determine if a contractor is in substantial compliance with the licensing requirements by deleting requirement # (3) in its entirety and modestly amending requirement # (4) to require the contractor to act promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
As a result, the substantial compliance exception under B&P 7031(e) reads as follows:
(e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor
(1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
This new legislation has tempered the burden of proof born by the contractor in establishing substantial compliance, although be it minor in its modification, the fact of the matter remains the same – be diligent in maintaining your license during all phases of contract work.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in the Walnut Creek office focusing his practice on commercial transactions and business and construction litigation. For questions regarding California Business and Professions Code section 7031, please feel free to contact Ivo Daniele at (925) 988-3222 or ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage
January 06, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured failed to present any argument for excess coverage after the insolvency of the primary carrier. Canal Ins. Co. v. Montello, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20625 (10th Cir. Nov. 27, 2015).
Montello distributed an oil drill containing asbestos between 1966 and 1985. Montello was sued by individuals claiming injuries due to exposure to the asbestos.
Montello was insured by The Home Insurance Company from March 1975 to March 1984. In 2003, Home was declared insolvent. Home did not pay any claims for bodily injury on Montello's behalf.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Recent Opinions Clarify Enforceability of Pay-if-Paid Provisions in Construction Contracts
May 29, 2023 —
Patrick McKnight - The Dispute ResolverSeveral recent opinions and legislative actions have brought the controversial nature of pay-if-paid provisions into focus in early 2023. Pay-if-paid provisions are contractual mechanisms designed to shift the risk of non-payment from General Contractors to lower-tier subcontractors. In other words, pay-if-paid provisions generally do not require payment to downstream subs until after the GC or Prime are themselves paid in-full by the owner. Recent developments reflect the differing approaches taken by courts when addressing pay-if-paid provisions, ranging broadly from prohibition to full enforceability. Other jurisdictions fall somewhere in the middle, viewing such provisions with varying amounts of skepticism on the grounds heir impact on smaller downstream subs is disproportionate and unfair.
Pay-if-paid provisions are often contrasted against “pay-when-paid” provisions. Pay-when-paid provisions may require payment within a specified duration but remove the upstream contractor’s payment in-full as a condition precedent. The brief discussion below will not explore pay-when-paid, no damage for delay provisions, or statutory prompt payment acts. Instead, this article serves as a primer on recent legal developments related to pay-if-paid provisions exclusively.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLPMr. McKnight may be contacted at
pmcknight@foxrothschild.com
Colorado Legislature Considering Making it Easier to Prevail on CCPA Claims
April 03, 2023 —
Rachael Bandeira - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogHouse Bill 23-1192 (“HB 23-1192”) is one of the proposed bills making its way through the Colorado legislative session this year. It purports to create additional protections in the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), but instead threatens to put construction professionals at an increased risk during litigation. Under the scope of the proposed bill, many construction contracts, as drafted, could automatically add up to $250,000 to any claim by lowering the standard for what constitutes an “unfair or deceptive trade practice.” Further, it would remove elements of a CCPA claim currently required by law to prove that an unfair or deceptive trade practice “constitutes a significant impact to the public.” This bill still has a way to go before becoming law, but given its progress thus far, we believe it is highly probable that it will be enacted unless there is substantial pushback. For the reasons discussed below, we urge all construction professionals to take necessary action to obstruct this bill, and particularly Section 1 of the bill, from becoming enacted.
The most concerning proposed amendments to the CCPA, through Section 1 of the bill, do the following:
- Remove the knowingly or recklessly mental state from the general unfair or deceptive trade practice provision concerning an unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, knowingly false, or fraudulent act or practice;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rachael Bandeira, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Bandeira may be contacted at
bandeira@hhmrlaw.com
Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want
January 08, 2019 —
Leilani L. Jones - Payne & FearsOpting for arbitration requires attorneys to balance efficiency and procedural protections. The implications of arbitration are something clients certainly have to carefully consider both when drafting arbitration provisions, and after initiating a demand. While arbitration can in many respects streamline the civil discovery process, one of the largest roadblocks for cases in California arbitrations is “streamlining” discovery from nonparties. This article explores the challenges presented by third party discovery in arbitration, and proposes strategies for obtaining such discovery efficiently and expeditiously.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Leilani L. Jones, Payne & FearsMs. Jones may be contacted at
llj@paynefears.com
District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case
August 04, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Continental Western Insurance Company v. Shay Construction Inc., Judge Walker Miller has granted a summary judgment against Shay Construction and their co-defendant, Milender White Construction Company.
Shay was the framing subcontractor for Milender White on what the court described as “a major construction project in Grand County, Colorado.” Two of Shay’s subcontractors, Wood Source Inc. and Chase Lumber Company furnished materials, labor, and equipment to Shay. They subsequently sued for nonpayment and sought to enforce mechanic’s liens, naming both Shay and Milender as defendants. Milender White alleged that Shay had “breached its obligation under its subcontracts with Milender White.”
Shay’s insurance provider, Continental Western, stated that its coverage did not include “the dispute between Shay, its subcontractors, particularly the cross claims asserted by Milender White.” Shay then sued Continental Western, alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.
The court, however, has found with Continental Western and has granted them a summary judgment. They found “no genuine issue as to any material fact.” The judge did not side with Continental Western on their interpretation of the phrase “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages.” The court found that the Colorado courts have not limited this to tort actions only. However, as Milender’s cross claim included claims of faulty workmanship on the part of Shay, Judge Miller found for Continental.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
