Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/right-to-repair-act-435
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 02:59:42
Document Index: 505723661

Matched Legal Cases: ['§895', '§ 895', '§ 944', '§910', '§896', '§910', '§ 930', '§ 912', '§ 920', '§ 452', '§946', 'art 3', '§ 946', 'art 3', '§ 337', '§ 895', '§ 941', '§ 941', '§ 337', '§ 895', 'art 3']

What is the Right to Repair Act?
“In Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 636, the California Supreme Court concluded that a group of homeowners could not recover damages in negligence from the developer, contractor or subcontractors who built their homes, for existing construction defects that had not yet caused either property damage or personal injury. In reaching this conclusion, the Aas court explained that while "tort law provides a remedy for construction defects that cause property damage or personal injury" (Id. at p. 635), the ‘economic loss rule’ precludes recovery for damages such as ‘the difference between price paid and value received, and deviations from standards of quality that have not resulted in property damage or personal injury.’” (Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1201 citing Aas, supra, at 636).
“In response to the holding in Aas, the Legislature enacted Civil Code section 895 et seq. (the Right to Repair Act or the Act).” (Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1201.) “The Act establishes a set of building standards pertaining to new residential construction, and provides homeowners with a cause of action against, among others, builders and individual product manufacturers for violation of the standards.” (Id. citing Secs. 896, 936). “The Act makes clear that upon a showing of violation of an applicable standard, a homeowner may recover economic losses from a builder without having to show that the violation caused property damage or personal injury.” (Id. citing Secs. 896, 942). “In such an instance, the Act abrogates the economic loss rule, thus legislatively superseding Aas.” (Id.)
Pleading Procedures and Requirements
The "Builder's Right to Repair Law" (Civil Code §895 et. seq.), effective 1/1/2003, establishes procedures and requirements with respect to construction defects involving homes and homeowners. The statutes established a statutory "pre-litigation procedure" that must be followed; but also gave developers the option of devising their own pre-litigation procedures - i.e. to contract for alternative non-adversarial pre-litigation procedures for resolving construction defects claims.
The Right to Repair Act (the “Act”) codifies a lengthy set of standards for asserting property damage claims arising out of the construction of individual dwellings. (Civ. Code §§ 895-945.5.) The Act creates a procedure for asserting construction defect claims and a statutory cause of action which replace common law litigation procedures and common law causes of action with respect to these claims. (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241, 251.) Various forms of economic loss are recoverable under the act, as is property damage resulting from construction defects. (Id. at 252; Civ. Code § 944.) “[F]or property damage, the Legislature replaced the common law methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (Id. at 253.)
Civil Code §§910-938 sets out a non-adversarial pre-litigation procedure that a homeowner is required to follow prior to filing a lawsuit to recover on claims of construction defects. (Anders v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 579). The homeowner must give written notice to the builder of any claim that the builder violated Civ. Code §§896 and 897, describing the nature and location of the claimed violations (See also §910). The builder, in turn, must acknowledge receipt of the defect claims and make elections, inspections, offers to repair etc. within the statutory time periods. It appears that the Legislature intended that this type of disclosure and response would also apply to situations where the builder and the homeowner agreed to contractual procedures. (See Standard Pacific Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 828.) As a result, where the ADR provisions are contractually based, each plaintiff homeowner needs to establish that he/she provided the builder with notice of the defects claimed to exist.
Civil Code section 912 identifies pre-litigation steps builders have a right take to address the problems claimed by plaintiffs and avoid litigation. To exercise this right, however, the builder must strictly comply with the provisions of the statute. Section 912, subdivision (i) states that “Any builder who fails to comply with any of these requirements within the time specified is not entitled to the protection of this chapter, and the homeowner is released from the requirements of this chapter and may proceed with the filing of an action, in which case the remaining chapters of this part shall continue to apply to the action.” (Civ. Code, Sec. 912.)
Section 915 provides:
“If a builder fails to acknowledge receipt of the notice of a claim within the time specified, elects not to go through the process set forth in this chapter, or fails to request an inspection within the time specified, or at the conclusion or cessation of an alternative non-adversarial proceeding, this chapter does not apply and the homeowner is released from the requirements of this chapter and may proceed with the filing of an action. However, the standards set forth in the other chapters of this title shall continue to apply to the action.”
(Civ. Code, Sec. 915.)
Useful Rulings on Right to Repair Act
Grant. The unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. All of Defendant’s evidentiary objections are overruled, with the exception of no. 4 to the Lucas Edwards’ Declaration, which is sustained on lack of personal knowledge and lack of foundation grounds. The motion for preliminary injunction is granted, but the proposed order is overbroad and should be modified to prohibit Defendant and...
..B800 prelitigation procedure. It does not violate the stay. Plaintiffs presented evidence that Defendant, through its agent Frontline, has been initiating contact with Plaintiffs directly by calling and repeatedly going door-to-door, offering to make warranty repairs and scheduling inspections. The warranty repairs are conditioned on the Plaintiff signing an “opt out” letter addressed to his or h...
Stephen Matthew Wozniak as Trustee of the Stephen Matthew Wozniak Trust dated November 18 2009 vs City Ventures Homebuilding LLC [E-FILE]
Defendants City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC, City Ventures Communities, LLC, CV Encinitas Lake St., LLC, City Ventures, LLC, City Ventures Construction, L.P. and Robert Mark Buckland's motion to dismiss/stay litigation to complete pre-litigation procedure is denied. Pursuant to CC § 930,(a) The time periods and all other requirements in this chapter are to be strictly construed, and, unless extende...
..oluntarily extended the statutory timeframe, the claimant may proceed with filing an action. If this occurs, the standards of the other chapters of this title shall continue to apply to the action. ....CC § 912(i) and § 920 contain similar provisions releasing the claimant/hom...
HEARING ON DEMURRER TO COMPLAINTFILED BY SHAPELL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.* TENTATIVE RULING: *This is a construction defect lawsuit brought by the homeowners’ association of a common interest development. Before the Court is a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) filed by Defendant Shapell Industries, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Shapell”) and Defendant Toll Brothers, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Toll Brothers”) (collecti...
..e fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action.For the following reasons, the Demurrer is sustained, with leave to amend. Request for Judicial NoticePlaintiff filed a request to judicially notice its Complaint. While the Court takes judicial...
Aeryn McCrorey vs. Tim Lewis Homes
TENTATIVE RULING:The Objection to the Court's Standing Order #2, which established the five-year statutory limit to bring this case to trial, is OVERRULED.The Requests for Judicial Notice are granted.This construction defect action was filed December 21, 2011, by Plaintiffs against Defendant Tim Lewis Communities ("TLC) (incorrectly named as Tim Lewis Homes). Following receipt of the Summons and C...
..proceedings on March 7, 2012. The stay remained in effect until it was lifted by order of the Court on September 12, 2013.After the Court lifted the stay, TLC filed a Cross-Complaint against various Cross-Defendants, including Objector MCML, on February 20,...
MARCUS SANFORd, et al.; Plaintiff, vs. 730 STANLEY, et al.; Defendants.Case No.: 19STCV17075Hearing Date: January 23, 2020[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:Defendants 730 STanley llc, haytham kafouf, ghassan kafouf, and alan fattal’s demurrer to the complaint.Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to Second through Fifth Causes of Action. The demurrer to the First cause o...
..ctively, the “Developer Individuals”) (Developer Individuals and 730 collectively, “Builders”), along with various Doe design professionals and subcontractors caused construction defects at the Subject Pro...
Taylor Morrison of California, LLC vs. Rancho Cielo Estates, Ltd.
The Motion for Leave to Intervene brought by proposed Intervenor Monica Ellis, as Trustee of the Monica Ellis Trust dated June 8, 2009 ("Homeowner Ellis") is DENIED.The Request for Judicial Notice brought by defendant/cross-complainant Rancho Cielo Estates, Ltd. ("Rancho Cielo" or "Developer") is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d). In addition, on its own motion, the Court takes judicial n...
..e present motion before the Court is not:--the instant motion is not a motion to consolidate, though the briefing references a prior related case, --the instant motion is not a motion to stay proceedings, though the briefing references staying a case pending the outcome of the...
Recent Rulings on Right to Repair Act
Ronald L. Styn (46)
Timothy M. Casserly (8)
Los Angeles County, CA (138)
Sacramento County, CA (39)
San Diego County, CA (85)
Ventura County, CA (34)
Code section 910, et seq., prior to bringing any claim for money or damages against the City.
JORGE AMBRIZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. Gov. Code §946.6(b).
ATIENZA V. SUPER
A tenant or former tenant has an independent action to recover damages for a breach of the warranty of habitability that is separate from his or her right to repair or deduct or to raise an affirmative defense of a breach of the warranty. (See, e.g., Quevedo v. Braga (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 (disapproved of on other grounds by, Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46) (independent action after vacating premises for abatement of excessive rent); Stoiber v.
DELSK GROUP LLC VS DENNIS GUTTIG
ALLISON HANFORD VS DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS
Section 945.4 provides: "Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . . ."
Family Code section 910(a) states that the general rule is that community property is liable for debts of a spouse during the marriage. However, Family Code section 911 also states that the earnings of a married person during the marriage are not liable for a debt incurred by the person’s spouse before marriage.
McMillin notes that after Aas, the Legislature devised a comprehensive statutory scheme to govern construction defect litigation, to wit, the Right to Repair Act. (McMillin, supra, 4 Cal.5th at 247.) “The Act sets forth detailed statewide standards that the components of a dwelling must satisfy.
IN THE MATTER OF: ANA GUZMAN
Subsection (b) provides that “[t]he petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied . . .” and must show each of the following: “(1) That application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. (2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2. (3) The information required by Section 910.”[3] Government Code § 946.6(c) provides that the court must relieve a petitioner from the requirements of
KENNETH MAYFIELD VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD, ET AL.
“Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2
TAMERIN LEWIS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
Because Plaintiff never amended her claim to include Kumlander’s identity, her claim did not comply with Government Code section 910, subdivision (e). And Kumlander contends that noncompliance with Government Code section 910, subdivision (e) acts as a bar to Plaintiff’s claims against him. In support of this assertion, Kumlander cited to Government Code section 950.2 and 950.4.
Family Code section 910 provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.” Sarcor submits a copy of Judgment Debtor’s credit report which identifies his spouse simply as “MARTA.” (Mot., Jones Decl., ¶ 8 Exh. C.)
PETITION OF TABATHA RUUD
Thus, Respondent was provided with essentially the same information that is required to be provided in a government claim under Government Code section 910. Therefore, Respondent will suffer no prejudice by the granting of this Petition to file late claim, in that Respondent received all of the information about the claim they need for notice while evidence is available, witness memories are fresh, and they can investigate and if appropriate, settle early and avoid unnecessary expense. Barbara A. Kronlund
LENA AZARYAN VS CITY OF PASADENA
Section 910 ... until a written claim therefore has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board....” Section 910, in turn, requires that the claim state the “date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted” and provide “[a] general description of the ... injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.”
Family Code section 910, subdivision (a), provides, “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.” Community property assets are relevant to punitive damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.
ROMO V. LATON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
There are two main issues raised by the demurrer and the opposing papers: first, whether the Defendants are equitably estopped from arguing that Plaintiff’s claims were untimely presented; and, second, whether the claim as presented substantially complied with Government Code section 910 regarding claims under the Government Torts Claim Act.
SAMUEL CAMARISTA VS. MERITAGE HOMES
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.1 and 337.15 do not apply to a cause of action under the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code § 895, et seq., which has a separate statute of limitations under Civil Code § 941. Civil Code § 941(d), by its terms makes Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.1 and 337.15 inapplicable to claims brought under the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code § 895 et seq.
Family Code section 910, subdivision (a) provides. “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse had the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.” III. Discussion Judgment Creditor’s counsel conducted a debtor examination of Judgment Debtor Jeldi on March 14, 2017.
CHRISTOPHER KREIDER VS LUIS ALEXIS HERNANDEZ ET AL
Under Government Code 945.4: “Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance
Sixth Cause of Action for Negligence Swinerton argues that Plaintiff’s case falls within the Right to Repair Act and that the allegations of the sixth cause of action are a sham pleading because Plaintiff has changed the facts of the negligence cause of action to circumvent the exclusivity of the Act. The Right to Repair Act is encompassed by Civil Code sections 895-945.5. (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241, 246-247.)