Breaking Down Homeowners Association Laws In California
April 03, 2019 —
Lauren Hickey - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPurpose of HOAs
Property ownership often combines elements of individual and common ownership interests. For example, a property owner may individually own his or her living quarters, but also own a common interest in amenities that are considered too expensive for a single homeowner to purchase individually (such as a pool, gym, or trash collection service). Properties with such elements usually take the form of apartments, condominiums, planned developments, or stock cooperatives (together known as “common interest developments” or “CIDs”). Whenever a CID is built, California law requires the developer to organize a homeowner association (or “HOA), which can take several different names, including “community association”. Initially, the developer relies on the HOA to market the development to prospective buyers. Once each unit in the development is sold, management of the HOA is passed to a board of directors elected by the homeowners. At that point, the primary purpose of the HOA shifts to maintenance of common amenities and enforcement of community standards.
Dues/Assessments
HOAs generally charge each homeowner monthly or annual dues to cover the cost of their services. HOAs may also charge special assessments to cover large, abnormal expenses, such as the cost of upgrades or improvements. The amount charged in dues and assessments is established by the HOA’s board of directors, within the limits set by the HOA’s governing documents and California Civil Code section 1366. Section 1366 provides that HOA dues may not be increased by more than 20 percent of the amount set in the previous year, and the total amount of any special assessments charged in a given year generally may not exceed 5 percent of the HOA’s budgeted expenses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren Hickey, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing
May 07, 2014 —
Henry Goldman – BloombergNew York Mayor Bill de Blasio presented plans to build and preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing in the next decade by increasing rent protections for the poor and requiring developers to include below-market apartments in newly zoned areas.
The $41.1 billion program, paid for with city, state, federal and private funds, would focus 60 percent on preservation and 40 percent on new construction. About $8.2 billion of the cost would be borne by the city, according to a 116-page report detailing the plan, which de Blasio called the “largest, fastest” affordable-housing program ever attempted at the local level.
De Blasio, 52, a self-described progressive and the city’s first Democratic mayor in 20 years, took office in January after describing income inequality as the most serious issue facing the most populous U.S. city. He turned his attention to housing today after pushing the state legislature in March to grant the city $300 million to institute universal all-day pre-kindergarten.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Henry Goldman, BloombergMr. Goldman may be contacted at
hgoldman@bloomberg.net
Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Texas Supreme Court ruled on Ewing v. Amerisure Ins. Co. on January 17th, a “much-anticipated” decision according to Carl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. “Construction projects are always the subject of contracts among owners and contractors” Salisbury stated in his article on Lexology.com. The recent decision demonstrates that “an exclusion in the standard Comprehensive Liability Insurance policy that precludes coverage for ‘liabilities assumed under contract’” does not usually “apply to construction contracts.”
In 2008, Ewing Construction Company built a set of tennis courts in Corpus Christi, according to Salisbury. “Shortly after construction was complete, according to the school district, ‘the courts started flaking, crumbling, and cracking, rendering them unusable for their intended purpose of hosting competitive tennis events.’” After the school district sued Ewing in state court, Ewing “turned the suit over to Amerisure, its CGL insurer, seeking a defense and indemnity. Amerisure denied all coverage, citing the contractual liability exclusion in its policy. This inspired Ewing to sue the carrier in federal district court for the Southern District of Texas.”
After several rulings and appeals, the case eventually reached the Texas Supreme Court: “According to the Ewing court, the contract claims that Ewing failed to perform in a good and workmanlike manner ‘are substantively the same as its claims that Ewing negligently performed under the contract because they contain the same factual allegations and alleged misconduct.’ Failure to perform in a ‘good and workmanlike manner’ is functionally and substantively the same as performing negligently. ‘Accordingly,’ the Ewing court said, ‘we conclude that a general contractor who agrees to perform its construction work in a good and workmanlike manner, without more, does not enlarge its duty to exercise ordinary care in fulfilling its contract, thus it does not ‘assume liability’ for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion
October 01, 2014 —
Flavia Krause-Jackson – BloombergReplacing the world’s substandard housing and building affordable alternatives to meet future global demand would cost as much as $11 trillion, according to initial findings in a McKinsey & Co. report.
The shortage of decent accommodation means as many as 1.6 billion people from London to Shanghai may be forced to choose between shelter or necessities such as health care, food and education, data disclosed at the 2014 CityLab Conference in Los Angeles show. McKinsey will release the full report in October.
The global consulting company says governments should release parcels of land at below-market prices, put housing developments near transportation and unlock idle property hoarded by speculators and investors. The report noted that China fines owners 20 percent of the land price if property is undeveloped after a year and has the right to subsequently confiscate it.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Flavia Krause-Jackson, BloombergMs. Krause-Jackson may be contacted at
fjackson@bloomberg.net
Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California
July 14, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogShaken?
Stirred?
A bit hot under the tuxedo collar perhaps?
Maybe it’s time for a martini. Or two.
When your project’s a mess, your contractor isn’t returning your calls, and you don’t have a license to kill it’s only natural that you would want to go after that other license: the contractor’s license bond.
However, except for smaller claims, or situations where you discover that the contractor is or might be judgment-proof, going after a contractor’s license bond isn’t necessarily the panacea many might hope it to be. Read on to learn why.
What is a license bond?
First, a license bond is not insurance. While insurance is typically limited to property damage and personal injury, a license bond covers a contractor’s violation of the Contractors State License Law. All California contractors are required to have on file a license bond (or, alternative, such as a cash deposit) with the California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”).
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
No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFOur post last week addressed the duty to defend when alleged faulty workmanship caused loss to property adjacent to where the insured was working. See Pamerin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wis. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012) [post here]. Today, we report on recent developments in the same case where the court determined, despite earlier finding the insurer owed a defense, it had no duty to indemnify. Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wisc. App. LEXIS 793 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2012).
Hendricks contracted to “prepare the site and supply and install concrete, tamped concrete, and colored concrete” at several service stations. The owner sued Hendricks, alleging the concrete “was defective and/or the work performed was not done in a workman-like manner and resulted in damages, and will require replacement.”
Pekin Insurance Company agreed to defend Hendricks subject to a reservation of rights.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFAttempts to build “green,” reducing energy costs and increasing the use of sustainable building materials, may lead to more lawsuits, according to a report issued by the British Columbia Construction Association. The report warned those who were going to build green look into the implications. The report looked at the result of green building practices and requirements adopted in the United States.
The report warns that “the use of novel, less harmful building material or new construction techniques may give rise to liability due to: contractor inexperience with installation; lack of long-term evaluation of green materials; lack of understanding of how new building materials may impact existing traditional building systems; or warranties provided unintentionally about the durability or effectiveness of unproven materials or techniques.”
Manley McLachlan, president of the BCAA noted that they are aware of “legal action around the performance of the buildings,” noting that while fast-growing trees help toward LEED certification, their wood is more prone to mold. He also felt that low-VOC paints needed more testing to prove their durability as exterior finishes.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
