Archive

Archive for the ‘Construction Law’ Category

Accessory Dwelling Units / In-Law Units Encouraged by New Laws

March 8, 2017 Leave a comment

An ADU, previously known as “in-law” units or “granny flats,” are additional living spaces on single-family lots that have a separate kitchen, bathroom, and exterior access independent of the primary residence. Two bills, SB-1069 and AB-2299 were recently enacted amending provisions of the Government Code, and generally encouraging the building of ADU’s.  These bills require local governments to permit property owners to build ADUs in single-family and multifamily residential zones, so long as the ADU meets specific standards defined in the bill. Those standards include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, landscape, architectural review, and maximum size of a unit. As long as the standards are met, local cities and counties are required to approve the ADU. Property owners, who are interested in adding an ADU to their property, should consult with their local building or planning department and an attorney.

– All Rights Reserved © 2017 by Michael L. Mau, Esq. and The Mau Law Firm

Contractor Problem? Remember the License Bond as Security.

February 12, 2015 Leave a comment

For homeowner’s damaged by a home improvement contractor working on their their primary residence, don’t forget their License Bond as security.  For these homeowner’s, the available License Bond proceeds are the full sum of the bond or $12,500.00.  The legislature should probably at least double this bond amount, but for now this is the limit.  There are a few other categories of claimants who can pursue that full License Bond sum, such as unpaid employees of the contractor.  But a more common example, is the homeowner who hires a home improvement contractor, who abandons the job half way to completion or who causes more damage then they are fixing!  Keep in mind, this can be a contractor of different trades such as roofer, plumber or painter.  See, B&P Code Section 7071.5 and 7071.6 for more details.  If you need to pursue such a claim, call an experienced Construction Law Attorney.

– All Rights Reserved © 2015 by Michael L. Mau, Esq. and The Mau Law Firm

Architects owe a Duty of Care to Future Homeowners

July 7, 2014 Leave a comment

In Beacon Residential Community Assoc. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (No. S208173), the California Supreme Court expanded the potential liability of architects who are the primary designers of a residential building, typically a condominium development.  The Supreme Court held that an architect owes a duty of care to future homeowners in the design of a residential building where, the architect is a principal architect on the project, that is, the architect, in providing professional design services, is not subordinate to other design professionals. The duty of care extends to such architects even when they do not actually build the project or exercise ultimate control over construction.

– All Rights Reserved © 2014 by Michael L. Mau, Esq. and The Mau Law Firm

Smoke Detector Compliance Law Change

January 30, 2014 Leave a comment

Commencing July 1, 2014 under SB-745, all smoke alarms including combination smoke alarms, that are solely battery powered shall contain a nonreplaceable, nonremovable battery that is capable of powering the smoke alarm for at least 10 years. This is a slight extension as this change was going to be effective on January 1, 2014. There are also EXCEPTIONS: This section shall not apply to any smoke alarm or combination smoke alarm that has been ordered by, or are in the inventory of, an owner, managing agent, contractor, wholesaler, or retailer on or before July 1, 2014, until July 1, 2015. The amended law is in Health and Safety Code Section 13114.

– All Rights Reserved © 2014 by Michael L. Mau, Esq. and The Mau Law Firm

San Miguel v. State Farm finds No Duty to Defend Non-monetary Claims

October 22, 2013 Leave a comment

In the recently published case of San Miguel Community Assn. v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (October 1, 2013) (Cal.App.4th, No. G047738. Fourth Dist., Div. Three.), a Court of Appeals ruled that when an insurance company issues a liability policy, agreeing to indemnify its insured against a third party claim for damages covered under the policy, and to defend the insured against any such claim, the insurer does not have a duty to defend the insured against a third party lawsuit seeking only injunctive relief but no compensatory damages.  The insurer’s defense obligation requires it to provide the insured with a defense against a claim seeking damages potentially payable under the policy, not to defend the insured’s honor or otherwise assist it in resolving a non-monetary dispute which a claim for pure injunctive relief was.  It is important when tendering claims to your insurance carrier, to check that the claim has potential coverage and to engage experienced business and insurance law counsel to assist.

– All Rights Reserved © 2013 by Michael L. Mau, Esq. and The Mau Law Firm

MacDonald v. State affirms employees must exhaust Administrative Remedies before Suing

August 28, 2013 Leave a comment

In MacDonald v. State of California [No. C069646. Third Dist. Aug. 27, 2013] as just published, a Judgment for defendant-employer on plaintiff’s claim for retaliatory discharge was affirmed. The appeals court held an employee must exhaust the administrative remedy set forth in Labor Code section 98.7 before filing suit in superior court for retaliatory discharge in violation of sections 1102.5 and 6310. Labor Code Section 1102.5 is a whistle-blower statute, the purpose of which is to encourage workplace whistle-blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation. Though this whistle-blower statute does not itself have an administrative remedy, Labor Code Section 98.7 does reference one and the appeals court held that must be exhausted first, and prior to, filing a lawsuit for retaliatory termination.

– All Rights Reserved © 2013 by Michael L. Mau, Esq. and The Mau Law Firm

Cal. Supreme Court Enforces Public Records Act

July 9, 2013 Leave a comment

In Sierra Club v. Superior Court (No. S194708), the California Supreme Court just issued its ruling enforcing a Public Records Act Request under Government Code Section 6250, et seq. The Supreme Court ruled, that the lower court had improperly denied the Sierra Club’s petition for writ of mandate to compel a defendant-county to provide the Orange County Landbase, a geographic information system (GIS) database in a GIS file format as a public record for a fee covering only the direct cost of duplication. The Supreme Court held that 1) although GIS mapping software falls within the ambit of the computer software exclusion under the California Public Records Act, a GIS-formatted database like the OC Landbase at issue here does not; and 2) accordingly, such databases are public records that, unless otherwise exempt, must be produced upon request at the actual cost of duplication. Key to the ruling it seems, was the principle that the Public Records Act and the California Constitution provide the public with a right of access to government information, and that “Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy.” (Citations omitted). Ultimately, the Supreme Court sided with the public’s right to access of such public government records.

– All Rights Reserved © 2013 by Michael L. Mau, Esq. and The Mau Law Firm