Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was the effect of a subordination agreement between fewer than all of the creditors who hold an interest in the same collateral. Appellant VCS, Inc. provided labor and materials to improve real property located in a planned unit development. The developer, Acord Meadows, secured funding for the project from America West Bank and Utah Funding Commercial. The loans were secured with trust deeds to the development properties, and the lenders entered into subordination agreements among themselves that altered the priority arrangement of their trust deeds. Because VCS was never paid for its work, it filed a mechanic’s lien covering several lots of the development, four of which were sold through a foreclosure sale after Acord defaulted on its loans from Utah Funding. VCS claimed it was entitled to payment of its mechanic’s lien because its lien had priority over Utah Funding’s liens. The district court ruled that VCS’s mechanic’s lien was extinguished by the foreclosure of Utah Funding’s liens. The Supreme Court affirmed after adopting the partial subordination approach to the issue in this case, holding that under the partial subordination approach, VCS’s mechanic’s lien was extinguished once Utah Funding’s lien was foreclosed upon. View "VCS Inc. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Roland and Sandra Crouch appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of North Alabama Sand & Gravel, LLC, now operating as Alliance Sand & Gravel, LLC, and Austin Powder Company ("Austin Powder") on the Crouches' claim asserting property damage resulting from Alliance Sand & Gravel's blasting operations. The Crouches sued Alliance Sand & Gravel and Austin Powder (collectively, "Alliance"), seeking compensation for damage to their property, which, they say, was caused by Alliance's blasting operations. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Alliance on the Crouches' trespass claim. The Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Alliance on the Crouches' claims alleging an abnormally dangerous activity, wantonness, and nuisance, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Crouch v. North Alabama Sand & Gravel, LLC" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether the developer of a master-planned subdivision (master developer) was liable under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act when a different developer sells units in a condominium project in the subdivision without providing a property report or making a statement of record available, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1703(a)(1)(A)-(B). RP Steamboat Springs, LLC was formed for the purpose of developing a mixed-housing, master-planned subdivision in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, called Wildhorse Meadows. RP entered into an agreement with the City of Steamboat Springs to develop Wildhorse Meadows. As master developer and initial owner of the Trailhead parcel, RP engaged in a variety of marketing activities through its listing agent, S&P Properties, for the development as a whole and for Trailhead Lodge specifically. A group of investors formed Trailhead Lodge at Wildhorse Meadows, LLC for the purpose of developing the Trailhead Lodge condominiums. Trailhead LLC hired Resort Ventures as its management company and S&P Properties as its listing and marketing agent. S&P Properties and Trailhead LLC's unsuccessfully tried to negotiate a separate project agreement for the Trailhead Lodge. RP entered into a project agreement with S&P Properties concerning Trailhead Lodge and then assigned all of its rights, title, and interest in the Trailhead Project Agreement to Trailhead LLC. RP transferred the Trailhead parcel to Trailhead LLC by special warranty deed. Two days before Trailhead LLC officially obtained ownership of the Trailhead parcel, several Buyers entered into (substantially identical) preconstruction purchase and sale agreements with Trailhead LLC. RP was not a signatory to the Contracts, but it was mentioned as the master developer. Buyers each paid a deposit toward the purchase of their respective Trailhead Lodge units. At the time Trailhead LLC entered into the Contracts with Buyers, no one had filed a statement of record with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Trailhead Lodge, nor were Buyers provided a property report, as required by the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. As a result of this failure, Buyers had the right to rescind the Contracts within two years after signing, which they did. The now-insolvent Trailhead LLC did not return the deposits Buyers paid under the Contracts. Buyers filed this action Trailhead LLC, RP, and S&P Properties. Among other claims, Buyers alleged Trailhead LLC, RP, and S&P Properties all qualified as developers under the Land Sales Act and that they violated the Land Sales Act by failing to file a statement of record and failing to provide a property report when Buyers purchased the condominium units. The district court subsequently granted Buyers' motion for summary judgment against Trailhead LLC on the Land Sales Act claims. Buyers later settled all claims against S&P Properties, and S&P Properties was dismissed from the case. Buyers and RP agreed to submit those Land Sales Act claims to the district court on written briefs, supporting affidavits, and stipulated facts. In its ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court ruled that RP was not liable under the relevant provisions of the Land Sales Act. Buyers timely appealed. The Tenth Circuit concluded that because the master developer in this case, RP Steamboat Springs, LLC (RP), neither directly nor indirectly sold the condominium units at issue, it was not liable under the Land Sales Act. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of RP. View "Dalzell v. Trailhead Lodge at Wildhorse" on Justia Law

Defendants, Keith McNamara, Shirley Benton, and Jerel Benton, appealed: (1) a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, Richard and Mary Murray, on their claim that the defendants breached the implied warranty of workmanlike quality; (2) a Superior Court order denying their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claim; and (3) a Superior Court order finding that the defendants violated the CPA when they built the plaintiffs' home with latent structural defects that caused mold growth. Defendants argued that, because plaintiffs' claim was exempt from the CPA, the trial court erred by denying their motion to dismiss. Defendants added that the trial court erred by denying their motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the plaintiffs breach of implied warranty claim. There is no dispute that the transaction at issue here is the defendants alleged construction of the house with latent structural defects, not any representations that the defendants made to others during or after construction. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, finding that because the house was completed in 2004 and was purchased by the plaintiffs five years later and the allegedly wrongful transaction occurred more than three years before the plaintiffs "knew or reasonably should have known" of it, the construction of the house was an exempt transaction pursuant to RSA 358-A:3, IV-a and that plaintiffs' CPA claim should have been dismissed. Thus, the Court reversed the trial court's ruling on the CPA claim. However, the Court was not persuaded that defendants were insulated from liability on the breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike quality claim. Because the Court reversed the trial court's judgment on the CPA claim, defendants failed to show that they were prejudiced with respect to the breach of warranty claim. View "Murray v. McNamara" on Justia Law

A large commercial development in Kansas City, Missouri was aborted in the middle of construction due to cost overruns. When the developer would not cover the shortfall, the construction lender stopped releasing committed loan funds, and contractors filed liens against the property for their unpaid work on the unfinished project. Bankruptcy followed, and the contractors’ liens were given priority over the lender’s security interest in the failed development, leaving little recovery for the lender. The lender looked to its title insurer for indemnification. The title policy generally covers lien defects, but it also contains a standard exclusion for liens “created, suffered, assumed or agreed to” by the insured lender. The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of the title company. The exclusion applies to the liens at issue, which resulted from the lender’s cutoff of loan funds, so the title insurer owed no duty to indemnify. The liens arose from insufficient project funds, a risk of loss that the lender, not the title company, had authority and responsibility to discover, monitor, and prevent. View "BB Syndication Servs, Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co" on Justia Law

In 2004, Berkeley issued a use permit for construction of a building with 51 residential rental units and ground floor commercial space. Permit condition 10 provides: “Before submission for building permit, the applicant shall submit floor plans and schedules … showing the location of each inclusionary unit and the sales or rental prices…. and that the unit rent or sales price complies with Chapter 23C.12” (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance). The Ordinance was designed to comply with Government Code section 65580, requiring a general plan to contain a housing element stating how the local agency will accommodate its share of regional need for affordable housing. The ordinance requires that 20 percent of all newly constructed residential units be reserved for households with below-median incomes and rented at below-market prices. The development took more than seven years. The city sought a declaration that the condition was valid, conceding that the ordinance has been preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civ. Code, 1954.50), but arguing that it may enforce the condition, the validity of which was not previously challenged. The court of appeal affirmed judgment in favor of the city. View "City of Berkeley v. 1080 Delaware, LLC" on Justia Law

Metropolitan National Bank agreed to finance construction of a residential subdivision. As security for the note, Ruskin Heights executed a mortgage on the real property in favor of Metropolitan. The afternoon after construction commenced, Metropolitan filed its mortgage. Approximately two years later, Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. (CTSA) filed an engineering lien against the property. Metropolitan filed a foreclosure complaint against Ruskin Heights and others. CTSA then filed a complaint asserting an engineer’s lien against Ruskin Heights and an amended complaint against Ruskin Heights and Metropolitan, requesting that its lien be declared superior to Metropolitan’s mortgage lien. The cases were consolidated. The circuit court concluded that CTSA’s lien was second in priority to Metropolitan’s lien. CTSA appealed, arguing that its lien should relate back to the commencement of construction and have priority over Metropolitan’s mortgage pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 18-44-110. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Metropolitan’s lien did not have priority over CTSA’s engineer’s lien because section 18-44-110 does not allow for an engineer’s lien to relate back to the date of construction. View "Crafton Tull Sparks & Assocs., Inc. v. Ruskin Heights, LLC" on Justia Law

In building their home, Plaintiffs purchased SuperFlex, a stucco-like material, to cover the house’s exterior. GrailCoat Worldwide, LLC and GrailCo, Inc. (collectively, GrailCoat), the manufacturers of SuperFlex, provided an express twenty-year warranty for the product. Several years after the construction of their home was completed, the product failed. Plaintiffs brought suit against GrailCoat and Hartley Construction, Inc., the company that had designed and built the home, for damages. Hartley moved for summary judgment under N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-50(a)(5), North Carolina’s six-year statute of repose for claims arising out of improvements to real property. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of express warranty against GrailCoat, holding that GrailCoat knowingly and freely entered into a valid contract of sale with Plaintiffs that provided for a warranty term that exceeded the repose period, and therefore, GrailCoat waived the protections provided by the statute of repose. View "Christie v. Hartley Constr., Inc." on Justia Law

The respondents, Shared Towers VA, LLC and NH Note Investment, LLC, appealed, and petitioner Joseph Turner, individually and as trustee of the Routes 3 and 25 Nominee Trust, cross-appealed, Superior Court orders after a bench trial on petitioner’s petition for a preliminary injunction enjoining a foreclosure sale and for damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. The parties’ dispute stemmed from a commercial construction loan agreement and promissory note secured by a mortgage, pursuant to which petitioner was loaned $450,000 at 13% interest per annum to build a home. Respondents argued the trial court erred when it: (1) determined that they would be unjustly enriched if the court required the petitioner to pay the amounts he owed under the note from November 2009 until April 2011; (2) applied the petitioner’s $450,000 lump sum payment to principal; (3) excluded evidence of the petitioner’s experience with similar loans; (4) ruled that, because the promissory note failed to contain a "clear statement in writing" of the charges owed, as required by RSA 399-B:2 (2006), respondents could not collect a $22,500 delinquency charge on the petitioner’s lump sum payment of principal; and (5) denied the respondents’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner argued that the trial court erroneously concluded that respondents’ actions did not violate the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). After review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded: contrary to the trial court’s decision, petitioner’s obligation to make the payments was not tolled. Because the loan agreement and note remained viable, it was error for the trial court to have afforded the petitioner a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. The trial court made its decision with regard to the payment of $450,000 in connection with its conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. Because the Supreme Court could not determine how the trial court would have ruled upon this issue had it not considered relief under that equitable theory, and because, given the nature of the parties’ arguments, resolving this issue requires fact finding that must be done by the trial court in the first instance, it vacated that part of its order and remanded for further proceedings. In light of the trial court’s errors with regard to the attorney’s fees and costs claimed by respondents, the Supreme Court vacated the order denying them, and remanded for consideration of respondents’ request for fees and costs. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court’s rejection of petitioner’s CPA claim. View "Turner v. Shared Towers VA, LLC" on Justia Law

Nick Rigano purchased certain property and George Vignogna, through Vibar Construction Corp., agreed to develop the property. Vibar constructed a common driveway to access the property, but Rigano failed to compensate it. Vibar filed a notice of mechanic’s lien on the property to recover the cost of constructing the road. The notice listed Fawn Builders, Inc. as the owner of the property rather than Rigano, the true owner and Fawn Builders’ sole shareholder and president. Rigano sought to have the lien discharged on the ground that the notice did not comply with the Lien Law requirements. Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition and discharged the mechanic’s lien. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the notice was jurisdictionally defective because it misidentified the true owner of the property. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under the particular circumstances presented here, the defect was a misdescription and not a misidentification, did not constitute a jurisdictional defect, and was curable by amendment. View "Rigano v. Vibar Constr., Inc." on Justia Law