This site and all blogs on this site are intended for informational purposes only. The purpose of this site is not intended to create an attorney client relationship or not a substitution for legal advise. Always seek legal advise from a credible lawyer.
As personal injury lawyers at Penney and Associates we will give a reasonable free initial consultation on your injury case, whether a car crash or any other type of injury.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Contractor and Subcontractor Dispute
Our office in Loomis, California recently took a case to trial in Placer County Superior Court. Penney and Associates, John Garcia represented the plaintiff.
Plaintiff provided a bid to defendant for labor and to supply and install metal frame and gypsum board on building # 14 and its mirror building #15 located in Roseville, California, for the sum of $494,470. The bid stated that it was valid for 30 days.
In sum, discussions between the parties noted that the bid was five months old. Thus during a later meeting they agreed that plaintiff had to keep the price the same because the bid had been used to obtain construction financing. During this meeting there were also discussions about the installation of a "dryvit" system and the "level of finish" required for the drywall. There were conflicting testimony's about what was agreed on. Defendants contend that plaintiff agreed to install drywall to a level 4 finish which was part of the price, plaintiffs contend that it was extra. Plaintiff agreed to install drywall to a level 4 but for an additional price.
On March 15, 2005, defendant drafted the "Project Subcontract Agreement" and "Master Subcontract Agreement," which were executed by both plaintiff and defendant. The contracts called for plaintiff to supply and install metal stud and drywall per plans for building #14. The defendant testified that they made a mistake with their computer software and forgot to contain the language concerning the "Dryvit" system.
Plaintiff completed its work on Building #14 except for some miscellaneous "punchlist" items. The defendant than replaced plaintiff with another subcontractor to complete the "Dryvit" system. The defendant only paid plaintiff a portion of the contract. Plaintiff recorded a mechanic's lien on the property and filed suit to perfect the mechanic's liens for the sum of $72,034.65. Prior to trial defendant recorded a Mechanic's Lien Release Bond from Fidelity Insurance Company and plaintiff proceeded with a collection action against the release bond.
The jury awarded plaintiff $52,125.00. During settlement discussions plaintiff agreed to take $45,000 and defendant refused and agreed to only pay $15,000.
Penney and Associates cannot guarantee the same result for similar circumstances.
Plaintiff provided a bid to defendant for labor and to supply and install metal frame and gypsum board on building # 14 and its mirror building #15 located in Roseville, California, for the sum of $494,470. The bid stated that it was valid for 30 days.
In sum, discussions between the parties noted that the bid was five months old. Thus during a later meeting they agreed that plaintiff had to keep the price the same because the bid had been used to obtain construction financing. During this meeting there were also discussions about the installation of a "dryvit" system and the "level of finish" required for the drywall. There were conflicting testimony's about what was agreed on. Defendants contend that plaintiff agreed to install drywall to a level 4 finish which was part of the price, plaintiffs contend that it was extra. Plaintiff agreed to install drywall to a level 4 but for an additional price.
On March 15, 2005, defendant drafted the "Project Subcontract Agreement" and "Master Subcontract Agreement," which were executed by both plaintiff and defendant. The contracts called for plaintiff to supply and install metal stud and drywall per plans for building #14. The defendant testified that they made a mistake with their computer software and forgot to contain the language concerning the "Dryvit" system.
Plaintiff completed its work on Building #14 except for some miscellaneous "punchlist" items. The defendant than replaced plaintiff with another subcontractor to complete the "Dryvit" system. The defendant only paid plaintiff a portion of the contract. Plaintiff recorded a mechanic's lien on the property and filed suit to perfect the mechanic's liens for the sum of $72,034.65. Prior to trial defendant recorded a Mechanic's Lien Release Bond from Fidelity Insurance Company and plaintiff proceeded with a collection action against the release bond.
The jury awarded plaintiff $52,125.00. During settlement discussions plaintiff agreed to take $45,000 and defendant refused and agreed to only pay $15,000.
Penney and Associates cannot guarantee the same result for similar circumstances.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Broker Fee Dispute
BROKER FEES DISPUTE
See Schwartz v. Stradella Investments Inc., binding arbitration; JAMS
Ronald Schwartz, a real estate broker, alleged that defendant and its president Rashid Boroumand breached a written finder’s fee agreement to sell defendants very valuable property located in Rancho Mirage, California. The 640 acres of unimproved property was called “the Eagle” and was one of the largest unimproved parcels in Rancho Mirage. Plaintiff contended that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff 1.5 percent of the purchase price of any buyer that plaintiff brought to him.
Plaintiff brought Sunrise Company to the table that ultimately put a deposit of $68,000,000 on the property. The estimated value of the whole property when paid off was $160,000,000. Defendant refused to pay the commission contending that defendant had participated in prior discussions with Sunrise Company.
At arbitration plaintiff was awarded $997,500.00 plus $159,055 in pre-judgment interest and $19,527 in costs.
If you have a real estate legal question concerning a breach of contract, anticipatory breach or fraud, contact a lawyer at Penney and Associates. See under General Civil Real Estate Division-- www.penneyandassociates.com
See Schwartz v. Stradella Investments Inc., binding arbitration; JAMS
Ronald Schwartz, a real estate broker, alleged that defendant and its president Rashid Boroumand breached a written finder’s fee agreement to sell defendants very valuable property located in Rancho Mirage, California. The 640 acres of unimproved property was called “the Eagle” and was one of the largest unimproved parcels in Rancho Mirage. Plaintiff contended that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff 1.5 percent of the purchase price of any buyer that plaintiff brought to him.
Plaintiff brought Sunrise Company to the table that ultimately put a deposit of $68,000,000 on the property. The estimated value of the whole property when paid off was $160,000,000. Defendant refused to pay the commission contending that defendant had participated in prior discussions with Sunrise Company.
At arbitration plaintiff was awarded $997,500.00 plus $159,055 in pre-judgment interest and $19,527 in costs.
If you have a real estate legal question concerning a breach of contract, anticipatory breach or fraud, contact a lawyer at Penney and Associates. See under General Civil Real Estate Division-- www.penneyandassociates.com
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Disclaimer
DISCLAIMER: here is the legal “mumbojumbo” that we need to say.
Any and all written material contained herein from Penney and Associates or its attorneys is for informational purposes and is not intended to be construed as legal advise. Any mention of cases or the results of such cases is not intended to advise concerning the value of similar cases. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult with an attorney.
Any and all written material contained herein from Penney and Associates or its attorneys is for informational purposes and is not intended to be construed as legal advise. Any mention of cases or the results of such cases is not intended to advise concerning the value of similar cases. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult with an attorney.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Construction By Landlord Results In Habitability Violations
In Los Angeles two married couples alleged that their landlord made their apartments inhabitable when he began construction on their apartments, including the kitchen, bedrooms and bathrooms. The plaintiffs complained that the construction caused the apartments to become inhabitable. The owners of the apartments disagreed and required plaintiffs to continue to pay rent. Both couples claimed that they were low-income couples and had been in their apartments for 10 years. Plaintiffs agreed to allow the owner of the apartments to make “quick and small” improvements to the rental units in order to turn them into condominiums. Instead, plaintiff contended that defendants tore down walls to the studs, cut off running water, gutted kitchens and bathrooms, exposed nails, exposed electrical wires and caused excessive dust, debris and noise. Plaintiff claimed that defendant landlord breached the following; habitability, quiet enjoyment, nuisance, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation and unlawful business practice.
The above case went to trial and the result was an award for both couples for a total of $122,120.00. However, plaintiffs were also awarded attorney fees by the judge in the amount of $450,000.00.
If you have had an issue of habitability violations Penney and Associates may be able to help you. Penney and Associates does not guarantee the outcome of any specific case.
The above case went to trial and the result was an award for both couples for a total of $122,120.00. However, plaintiffs were also awarded attorney fees by the judge in the amount of $450,000.00.
If you have had an issue of habitability violations Penney and Associates may be able to help you. Penney and Associates does not guarantee the outcome of any specific case.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Real Estate Law
As the Real Estate, Construction and Collection attorney at Penney and Associates, I deal with interesting cases every day. If you have a real estate, construction or collection legal question do not hesitate to call our office at 916-652-7235.
In Los Angeles (this type of case occurs in Sacramento, San Francisco, Roseville or any other city), the court granted a Mr. Gillingham and his neighbors an equitable easement across the property of Rancho Agua Dulce LLC. A number of plaintiff's used a dirt road known as "Briggs Road" for 30 years to access their homes. The road crossed a parcel of mostly vacant land owned by the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the only reasonable access to their homes was through Briggs Road. They claimed an implied easement and a prescriptive easement. This litigation arose out of defendants erecting a gate across the access road. The defendant claimed the homeowners were trespassing on its land. The court held for the plaintiffs and found that the road had been in use in some fashion since 1930.
The outcome of this case does not guarantee the same outcome to a case that may have a similar fact pattern.
In Los Angeles (this type of case occurs in Sacramento, San Francisco, Roseville or any other city), the court granted a Mr. Gillingham and his neighbors an equitable easement across the property of Rancho Agua Dulce LLC. A number of plaintiff's used a dirt road known as "Briggs Road" for 30 years to access their homes. The road crossed a parcel of mostly vacant land owned by the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the only reasonable access to their homes was through Briggs Road. They claimed an implied easement and a prescriptive easement. This litigation arose out of defendants erecting a gate across the access road. The defendant claimed the homeowners were trespassing on its land. The court held for the plaintiffs and found that the road had been in use in some fashion since 1930.
The outcome of this case does not guarantee the same outcome to a case that may have a similar fact pattern.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
