Recently, in Blanchette v. Superior Court, (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 521, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that if a builder fails to acknowledge receipt of a homeowner’s Notice of Claim within 14 days, as required by the Right to Repair Act (“SB800”), specifically California Civil Code §913, the homeowner is released from the requirements of SB800 and may proceed with the filing of a lawsuit.

Background:

Blanchette owned 1 of 28 homes constructed by GHA Enterprises, Inc. (“GHA”). On February 2, 2016, Blanchette served GHA with notice of a claim, setting forth the alleged defects in all 28 homes. On February 23, 2016, GHA responded that the construction defects were not alleged with sufficient “reasonable detail” as required by Civil Code §910.

In response, Blanchette asserted that GHA’s response was untimely and thus excused him and the other homeowners from any obligations under SB800.  The trial court found for the builder, GHA, holding that Blanchette’s Notice of Claim lacked detail sufficient to trigger GHA’s obligations under SB800.  Blanchette appealed the ruling.

Rationale:

Although the Court of Appeal agreed that Blanchette’s Notice of Claim was insufficient because it did not provide reasonable detail to satisfy Civil Code§ 910, the Court of Appeal held that GHA’s failure to timely acknowledge Blanchette’s Notice of Claim released Blanchette from the requirements of SB800.

As the Court of Appeal recognized, Civil Code §930 expressly provides that the timing requirements of SB800 are to be strictly construed. The Court of Appeal reasoned that its holding is consistent with the purpose of SB800, which is to promote resolution of a homeowner’s construction defect claim “in an expeditious and non-adversarial manner.”

The Court of Appeal further reasoned that:

“[a]n interpretation that permits a builder to ignore the time limits of section 913 and nonetheless preserve its objection to the lack of detail in a notice and require that the trial   court then resolve the issue after litigation has commenced, will only delay construction     defect claims.”

Practice Tip:

Blanchette is a reminder that Courts will strictly enforce the time frames set forth in SB800.  Accordingly, builders and their counsel must ensure proper compliance with the procedures and deadlines of SB800 in order to maintain their rights thereunder, including the right to challenge the sufficiency of a Notice of Claim served by a homeowner.

Download or Print Article Here

Keep Reading

Cannabis Workers Allege Quota to Trim 4 Pounds a Day Violates the California Labor Code The Ninth Circuit Reminds Us: Every Word Matters NO WAY, PRO SE! The Consequences of Abusing the Judicial System as a Pro Se Litigant in Colorado Victim of Financial Mismanagement or Unlawful Retaliation? New Jersey City University Program Founder Claims School Retaliated After Reporting Alleged Sexual Harassment “Real Housewives” Gets a Reality Check Missing a Chapter: Insufficiency of Expert Deposition Testimony in Medical Malpractice Litigation Crash Course: Why Summary Judgment Misses the Mark in Illinois Multi-Cause Limousine Crash Collision Bitter Truths: Lead, Cadmium, and Defective Pleadings in California Chocolate Class Action The Law of Unintended Consequences: Including Insurance Brokers in Litigation Strategy Communication May Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege

More by this author

Product Defects and The Risk-Benefit Test Courts will Allow Clarification of an Ambiguous CCP 998 Offer to Compromise in Consideration of the Offer’s Validity No Coverage Where Negligence is Inseparable with Professional Service Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property Additional Insured Coverage as to Ongoing Operations Builder Must Respond To Notice Of Claim Within Statutory Time Frame As Required In California’s Civil Code Damage to an Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Risk