Richard H. Glucksman | Chapman Glucksman - Publications

Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy

Dec 08 2016

By: Richard H. Glucksman and Ravi R. Mehta
December 8, 2016

I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016

The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.

The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.

UPDATE – McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

Sep 30 2016

By: Richard H Glucksman and David A. Napper September 30, 2016

The matter has been fully briefed and the construction industry is one step closer to receiving the California Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132. The Supreme Court will address the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District Court’s holding in McMillin Albany, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District Court’s holding in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The issue is whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2013. Oral argument is still pending, and CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the progress of this case. Stay tuned.

Complex Civil Litigation Program and its Expansion to San Bernardino County

Sep 30 2016

By: Richard H. Glucksman and David A. Napper
September 30, 2016

Complex Civil Litigation Programs have been utilized in California for over fifteen (15) years. Complex cases require more intensive judicial management, and include claims such as construction defects, mass torts, class actions, antitrust, securities claims, and toxic torts. The Presiding Judge in a department dedicated to managing highly complex cases is tasked with providing exceptional and individualized judicial management, expedited resolution of complex issues, and cost and resource efficiencies.

The creation of the department is the result of increased levels of funding received by the Court. With its creation of a Complex Civil Court system, San Bernardino joins numerous other counties throughout California – including, but not limited to: Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Francisco, and Santa Clara – which already handle complex civil matters. San Bernardino Superior Court is the most recent Court to implement a Complex Litigation Department, effective September 6, 2016.

Arbitration Update: An Overview of Recent California Appellate Decisions

Dec 16 2015

A Primer on the Evolving Case Law Governing the Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses

By: Richard H. Glucksman, Craig A. Roeb and Grace A. Nguyen
Published in California Lawyer – Download Article
December 4, 2015

Arbitration is a common procedure for dispute resolution—specific clauses requiring arbitration frequently appear in both commercial and consumer contracts. Even so, lawyers continue to battle over when and how arbitration can be invoked. Those skirmishes have produced a flood of recent appellate decisions that has greatly transformed the availability and enforceability of arbitration.

California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels

Nov 24 2015

By: Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper
November 24, 2014
Download Article

The Complex Civil Litigation Program is relatively new as it has only existed in California since 2000. Complex divisions dedicate courtrooms solely for litigation of complex civil cases that require exceptional judicial management including construction defects, antitrust, securities, toxic torts, mass torts, and class actions. Complex civil courtrooms help the trial court operate in a more efficient, expeditious, and effective manner. A complex court reduces costs for litigants by streamlining motion practice and expeditiously resolving discovery disputes.

Extra Extra

Sep 08 2015

All Claims for Construction Defects in Residential Construction Sold on or after January 1, 2003 are Subject to Requirements and Procedures of the Right to Repair Act (SB 800)

McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.)

By: Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper
September 8, 2015
Download Article

In a particularly dramatic and noteworthy fashion and breaking with the Fourth Appellate District and rejecting the holding in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, commonly referred to as SB800, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, SB 800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.

Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure

Sep 01 2015

A Brief Reflection Regarding the Trend Towards Heightened Disclosure Requirements in Real Property Transactions

By: Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper
September 1, 2015
Download Article

A brief reflection regarding the trend towards heightened disclosure requirements in real property transactions including the recent case of Wong v. Stoler (2015 WL 3862525), where the seller’s failure to disclose private sewer line resulted in rescission of the contract.

In a very recently published opinion in a real property disclosure case, the First District Court of Appeal in Wayson Wong v. Ira Stoler (2015 WL 3862525), held that the trial court declined to effectuate a rescission of the contract based on incorrect justifications and that its alternative remedy failed to provide the purchasers with the complete relief to which they were entitled.

Contractor License Overview – With a Twist

Sep 01 2015

By: Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper
September 1, 2015
Download Article

The California Contractors State License Board provides licenses to contractors and regulates the state’s construction activity. The California Business and Profession (“B&P”) Code Section 7031 prohibits unlicensed contractors from bringing or maintaining an action to recover compensation in any court in the state of California. Section 7031 also addresses, amongst other issues, recovery from an unlicensed contractor and when proof of licensure is required in a civil suit. In order to recover in a civil action, a contractor must allege that he or she was a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance of that act or contract, regardless of the merits of the cause of action brought by the person. Section 7031 protects consumers who enter into agreements with contractors and promotes the public policy of having licensed, competent, and honest builders. See Montgomery Sansome LP v. Rezai (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 786. However as further examined by the recent case of Art Womack v. David Angus Lovell et al. (2015) WL 3658066, Section 7031 also protects the builders and contractors from cagey pleading practices by Plaintiff homeowners.

SB 652: Homeowners Required To Notify Potential Buyers Of Construction Defect Claims

Feb 05 2015

By: Richard H. Glucksman and Jon A. Turigliatto
February 5, 2015

Beginning July 1, 2014, SB 652 amends the Transfer Disclosure Statement required under Civil Code §1102.6 for residential property, to ask sellers about the following type of specified claims “threatening or affecting” the property:

Claims for damages by the seller pursuant to Civil Code § 910 or 914.
Claims for breach of warranty pursuant to Civil Code §900.
Claims for breach of an enhanced protection agreement pursuant to Civil Code §903.
Claims alleging defect or deficiency in the property or common area improvements pursuant to Civil Code §910 or 914.

Newly enacted SB 652 requires the seller of residential property to disclose to potential purchasers all specified claims of damages related to construction defects, including all pre-litigation claims presented to the builder and the status of those claims.

Existing law, pursuant to SB 800, requires a homeowner to follow a mandatory procedure prior to filing a construction defect lawsuit. The process requires the homeowner to submit the claim to the builder, and then gives the builder a right to repair the defects. If the builder fails to make repairs, or the repairs are not adequate, the homeowner may proceed with the filing of a lawsuit. While existing law also requires that a seller of residential property disclose at the time of transfer anything that materially affects the value of the property, there is no requirement that a homeowner notify a potential buyer of a construction defect within the home.

Colorado Update: Proposed Legislation Regarding HOA Condominium Defect Claims

Feb 05 2015

By: Richard H. Glucksman and Jon A. Turigliatto
February 5, 2015

DISCUSSION

As part of our on-going mission to monitor and track legislatures, legal decisions and developments throughout the United States that impact our clients, we share the following brief discussion of potential tort reform legislation presented in Colorado regarding construction claims by Homeowner Associations for condominiums.

Lawmakers in Colorado formally introduced SB 220, a proposed measure requiring:

Condo owners to submit to alternative-dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration, for any construction defect claim that occurred when the homeowner association required alternative-dispute resolution, even if the requirement no longer exists at the time the claim is brought;

Notice be given prior to the purchase and sale of a condominium that the homeowner association’s may require binding arbitration of certain disputes; and

The association’s board to obtain the written consent of a majority of the condo owners before a construction defect lawsuit is filed on behalf of the homeowner association (emphasis added).

Currently, in Colorado, homeowner association boards are only required to obtain two condominium owners’ consent to file a construction defect lawsuit against a developer. SB 220 would real significantly increased this requirement by requiring that the association board must obtain the written consent of a majority of the condominium owners before filing a construction defect lawsuit. This helpful requirement would have had the practical impact of reducing the number of lawsuits filed and decrease the threat of frivolous lawsuits against developers. Furthermore, it would require more construction defect claims to be resolved out of court, further discouraging homeowner associations from bringing meritless claims against developers.

Author - Richard H. Glucksman

A Primer on the Evolving Case Law Governing the Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses

All Claims for Construction Defects in Residential Construction Sold on or after January 1, 2003 are Subject to Requirements and Procedures of the Right to Repair Act (SB 800)

McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.)

A Brief Reflection Regarding the Trend Towards Heightened Disclosure Requirements in Real Property Transactions