Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says
March 19, 2014 —
Tom Schoenberg and Phil Mattingly – BloombergThe U.S. Justice Department failed to pursue mortgage fraud in the years following the 2008 financial crisis with the same level of commitment that it publicly touted, an internal watchdog said.
While Attorney General Eric Holder said mortgage-fraud cases were among the department’s top priorities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation internally ranked them the lowest of six criminal threats, according to a report released today by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The FBI devoted fewer resources to such cases even though Congress allocated $196 million for fiscal years 2009 to 2011 to pursue such conduct.
The Justice Department has been criticized by lawmakers and judges for not bringing more criminal cases against individuals following the collapse in housing prices and ensuing market turmoil. In August, Holder retracted a public statement after Bloomberg News reported that the department had inflated its track record of mortgage-fraud prosecutions.
Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Mattingly may be contacted at pmattingly@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Schoenberg and Phil Mattingly, Bloomberg
Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion
July 06, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling in June on the case of Nevins v. Toll in which they reversed an earlier decision and remanded the case to a lower court for retrial. At issue in the case was the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, J. Anthony Dowling. In depositions, Mr. Dowling said that his estimates for repair were based on a “gut feeling.” Dowling said he had “very little” experience in cost estimates for single-family homes. The defendants sought to bar Dowling’s testimony which was granted by the judge. Without an expert, Ms. Nevin’s case was dismissed.
Describing Dowling’s report as “far from a model of how an expert’s opinion in a construction case should be presented,” the court noted that Dowling is not a professional expert witness. However, the court did note that Dowling is a professional cost estimator. Despite Mr. Dowling using his “gut feeling” to construct his estimate, the New Jersey Supreme Court felt that whether his estimate is convincing is “a question for the jury.”
Read the court’s opinion…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act
March 13, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, 58 F.4th 1250 (D.C. Circ. 2023), dealt with the issue of whether a subcontractor’s superintendent constitutes recoverable “labor” within the meaning of the Miller Act and compensable as a cost under the Miller Act that typically views labor as on-site physical labor.
The issue is that the Miller Act covers “[e]very person that has furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253 quoting 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(1). The Miller Act does not define labor. The subcontractor claimed labor includes actual superintending at the job site. The surety disagreed that a superintendent’s presence on a job site constitutes labor as the superintendent has to actually perform physical labor on the job site to constitute compensable labor under the Miller Act.
The subcontractor argued its subcontract and the government’s quality control standards required detailed daily reports that verified manpower, equipment, and work performed at the job site. It further claimed its superintendent had to continuously supervise and inspect construction activities on-site: “[the] superintendent had to be on-site to account for, among other things, hours worked by crew members, usage and standby hours for each piece of equipment, materials delivered, weather throughout the day, and all work performed. These on-site responsibilities reflected the government’s quality control standards, under which the superintendent as ‘the most senior site manager at the project, is responsible for the overall construction activities at the site…includ[ing] all quality, workmanship, and production of crews and equipment.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253-54.
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
Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Close Call?”
August 05, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyNot really, said a Florida state appellate court when a public construction project owner sued a defaulted general contractor after recovering from the general contractor’s surety.
The general contractor, Close Construction, entered into a contract for a lift station rehabilitation construction project with the City of Riviera Beach in Florida. During the course of the work the public owner terminated the contract, whereupon the GC and the owner brought claims against each other in court. A jury ultimately held against the general contractor and in favor of the public owner in the amount of approximately $1.9 million. The general contractor appealed.
On appeal, the general contractor noted that the public works surety which it was required by the contract to obtain for the project had hired another company to complete the work when the general contractor was terminated and had otherwise “settled with the District under its bond for $1,000,000.” Based on that settlement, the general contractor had moved, unsuccessfully, in the trial court for a post-trial setoff because the “settlement covered the same damages that the jury assessed” against the GC, and because the surety was “jointly and severally liable” with the GC – pursuant to the terms of the bond – for those damages. In essence, the general contractor sought to avoid having the public owner “obtain a double recovery.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits
October 20, 2016 —
Gregory R. Begg & Aaron C. Schlesinger – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.What Action Should Owners, Developers and Contractors Take in Anticipation of Successful Challenges to PLA Requirements?
Recently, a federal court in New Jersey issued a decision which very well may invalidate all Project Labor Agreements (“PLA’s”) entered into as a condition to receipt of tax incentives for private development. Tax incentives utilized to promote private development are different, according to the court, than typical public works projects where PLA requirements have generally been held valid. Owners, developers, contractors and governmental entities must assess the consequences of this decision upon contracts already and to be awarded in the future where tax benefits may be linked to a PLA requirement.
In 1993, in what has become known as the Boston Harbor Case, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governmental entities may condition the award of public works contracts on the contractor’s agreement to enter into PLA’s.
That decision has been followed nationwide since then to uphold the validity of various state and local law bidding conditions requiring successful bidders to negotiate and enter into project labor agreements as a condition to the award of public works contracts. The rationale is that when the government, like any other private party, is participating in an economic market, it may exercise its discretion in setting terms and conditions it believes best suit its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services in that market. Therefore, a PLA requirement by a governmental entity engaged in market activity is no more or less valid than a PLA requirement on a purely private project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded
November 13, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court granted, in part, the insurer's motion to exclude portions of expert testimony. Tundra M. Holdings, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139952 (D. Alaska Aug. 10, 2023).
Plaintiff alleged a building it owned suffered damages consisting of building roof failure due to snow load. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Markel for its loss.
Plaintiff hired an engineering firm to conduct an inspection. The recommendation was to install snow guards and that 28 rafters be replaced with new beams. The evaluation did not state that the recommendation was required by law or ordinance. Nor did the evaluation make mention of replacing the metal roof on the building or anything about the water system or sprinkler system. Plaintiff then obtained an estimate of $687,500 for roof repair/replacement, store front repair, a sprinkler system installer and a water system upgrade.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program
October 21, 2019 —
Timothy Davis & Willliam Johnston - White and Williams LLPOn August 14, 2019, Mayor Jim Kenney signed a bill authorizing, through C-PACE loans, the financing of clean energy, alternative energy and water conservation projects for eligible commercial properties in Philadelphia. Philadelphia City Council unanimously voted to approve the C-PACE program on June 20, 2019. The program will be administered by the Philadelphia Energy Authority. Third-party capital providers (not the Philadelphia Energy Authority) will originate C-PACE financings for qualified projects.
C-PACE “assessments” will encumber the applicable property in a first lien position akin to a real estate tax. Documentation among the property owner, the City of Philadelphia, and the third party capital provider (identified in the ordinance as the “financial institution”) will provide, among other things, that the assessments will be payable and fully amortize over the term of the financing (i.e., 30 years) and will not be accelerated during its term. Importantly, before a C-PACE financing can be originated and the underlying property assessed, notice of the property owner’s desire to secure C-PACE financing under the program must be provided to the holder of a mortgage on the subject property and the holder of the mortgage must provide the property owner and the City of Philadelphia with its written consent. Without the mortgage lender’s consent, the C-PACE financing cannot be consummated.
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Davis, White and Williams LLP and
William Johnston, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Johnston may be contacted at johnstonw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk
February 12, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFEileen N. Fanning sued the city of Watertown, New York after incurring injuries from a fall on a sidewalk on Court Street, according to the Watertown Daily Times. A state Supreme Court judge dismissed the lawsuit.
According to Fanning as reported by the Watertown Daily Times, the plaintiff “fell on an uneven section of sidewalk” and “suffered multiple broken bones in her hand, as well as neurological damage to her arm, among other injuries.” She claimed that the damage is permanent. The lawsuit involved Purcell Construction (the landscape pavers), Neighbors of Watertown (a renovation project), and the city of Watertown.
The judge ruled that “Neighbors of Watertown was not liable for her injuries because the agency neither owned nor controlled the property where the injuries occurred and therefore ‘did not owe a duty of care’ to users of the walk as it was not responsible for the sidewalk’s maintenance.” The city was not held liable “because it had received no prior written notice about the alleged defective condition of the property.” Furthermore, the judge “agreed with Purcell Construction’s claim that the area claimed to be defective is ‘one little section’ of sidewalk ‘over which the public walked’ for nearly 20 years.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
