What are the standards for residential construction?

Useful Rulings on Standards for Residential Construction

Recent Rulings on Standards for Residential Construction

AXIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. ALMADEN TOWER VENTURE, LLC, ET AL.

Civil Code Section 896, Subdivision (g) 21 Webcor relies specifically on Civil Code section 896, subdivision (g)(3)(D) which 22 provides: 23 In any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction, design, specifications, surveying, 24 planning, supervision, testing, or observation of construction, a builder, and to the extent set forth in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 910), a general contractor, 25 subcontractor, material supplier, individual

  • Hearing

PARDO VS LIBERTY MANUFACTURED HOMES, INC.

. § Civil Code §896 provides that “this title applies to original construction intended to be sold as an individual dwelling unit [except] condominium conversions.” The Act covers foundation issues, soil issues, and general movement of the home or yard – without regard to how the structure was built. Importantly, section (g)(3) specifies that “manufactured products” incorporated within the home are covered as well.

  • Hearing

PARISI, ET AL. V. ALMADEN PROJECT LLC, ET AL.

On June 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, asserting causes of action for: 1) Defective and negligent construction in violation of Civil Code § 896, et seq.; 2) Intentional misrepresentation; 3) Negligent misrepresentation; 4) Concealment/nondisclosure of fact; 5) Breach of contract; and, 6) Breach of express and implied warranties.

  • Hearing

STANLEY W. COOK VS ALBINO CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Plaintiff cannot hold Defendant liable under CC §936, because the standards of the RRA do not apply to the construction of 6315 Tantalus Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 under Civil Code §§896, 911 and 938. The material facts are undisputed. Plaintiff is the owner of real property at 6315 Tantalus Drive, Malibu, CA 90265. See Defendant’s SSUMF No. 4; Plaintiff’s Response to SSUMF No. 4. Plaintiff hired Defendant to construct the Subject Home in 2003. Id. Plaintiff is the current owner of the Subject Home.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAMUEL & GALIA COHEN VS MARC & RISA DAUER ET AL

Plaintiffs also provide a separate declaration describing as an issue whether they could bring an action for violation of the building standards at Civil Code section 896, which they describe as “the SB800 building standards,” that is has been an issue since they first filed their unauthorized Third Amended Complaint, and that the issue was noted by the Court as early as August 7, 2018. (Mot., Makarczyk Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHU V BROOKFIELD WOODBURY II, LLC

Developer Defendants also warranted that repairs would be performed on defects and damages by express warranty in compliance with the standards set forth under Civil Code section 896, et seq.” and that Defendants breached the contract and warranty by selling Plaintiff a defective home. FAC, ¶¶ 20 and 24.

  • Hearing

CASEY WOO, ET AL VS. BRENT BRACELIN

Code § 896.) “. .. The Right to Repair Act establishes a set of building standards for new residential construction. . ." (Beacon Residential Community Assn. V.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    STEPHEN P. FRBCCERO

  • County

    Marin County, CA

PATEL M.D. VS. JELD-WEN, INC.

The Right to Repair Act, including Civil Code § 896, does not apply by its terms to the construction of this property based on Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs' first cause of action for negligence under Civil Code § 896 is sustained, without leave to amend, based on Civil Code § 938. B. Second Cause of Action (Negligence) 1.

  • Hearing

CHIOTTI, ET AL. V. K HOVNANIAN HOMES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint, filed on May 16, 2018, sets forth the 25 following causes of action: (1) Violation of Building Standards as Set Forth in California Civil 26 Code § 896; (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (3) Breach of Contract; and 27 (4) Breach of Express Warranty. 1 Now before the court is the motion of Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company 2 (“Ironshore”) to intervene and file a complaint-in-intervention on behalf of its insured Legacy 3 Plumbing Company, Inc. (“Legacy”).

  • Hearing

DEREK ROHAN VS JAYBELL, LLC

Code §§ 896, 943, 944.) The Court does not find this persuasive, as discussed below. Further, even if the Court accepts Defendants’ arguments that the negligence claim applies to the Act, the Court finds this demurrer to be procedurally improper under McMillin. First, the Court will explain the history and purposes of the Act and McMillin decision. In 2000, the California Supreme Court ruled in Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

AXIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. ALMADEN TOWER VENTURE, LLC, ET AL.

The Court now issues its tentative ruling as 22 follows: Amended Complaint, filed on April 4, 2018, sets forth the following causes of action: 26 (1) Breach of Express Warranties; (2) Breach of Implied Warranties; (3) Violation of Statute 27 (Civil Code, § 896, et seq.); and Breach of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and 28 Restrictions. 1 Cross-defendant BrassCraft Manufacturing Company (“BMC”) has reached a settlement 2 with plaintiff Axis Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”).

  • Hearing

SUSAN PENA, ET AL VS EDWARD KATS, ET AL

At the time of the purchase of the property by plaintiffs, the property was defective and unfit for its intended purpose because it had been constructed in a defective manner and in violation of the standards identified in Civil Code §896. On March 20, 2018, Yuriy Matyash, ind. and dba Tin Hill Construction filed a cross-complaint against Roes for indemnity, breach of warranties, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TRUDEAU VS. BAYVIEW BUILDERS

However, that case also involved a cause of action for rescission as well as restitution and does not address Civil Code § 896. Plaintiff does not seek relief from the seller and neither one of these cases appear to support compelling joinder of the seller under CCP § 389(a). To the extent Defendant seeks indemnity from Mitsuda the Court is inclined to agree with Plaintiff that a cross-complaint by Defendant would be a more appropriate procedural vehicle.

  • Hearing

THE GLOBE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. THE GLOBE AT 2ND AND SANTA CLARA L.P., ET AL.

Further, the Court notes Civil Codesection 896 covers a multitude of defects not only in the residence but also in improvements such as driveways, landscaping, and damage to the lot, etc.” (Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 875, 897.) In other words, it is not apparent the “improvements” now alleged in the negligence cause of action in the FAC are not encompassed by the Right to Repair Act.

  • Hearing

MARCUS SANFORD, ET AL. VS 730 STANLEY, ET AL.

procedural history The Sanfords filed the Complaint on May 16, 2019 alleging 5 causes of action: Violation of Civil Code § 896 (Construction Defects) Negligence Strict liability Breach of implied warranty of merchantability Breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Builders filed the present Demurrer on July 19, 2019. Sanfords filed an Opposition on January 8, 2020. Builders filed a Reply on January 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

ANDERSON, ETC. V. CYBERTECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiffs also allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for Violation of Civil Code § 896 against Defendant. The complaint alleges Defendant was in the business of developing and constructing homes for sale. Complaint, at ¶ 46. As Plaintiffs’ correctly point out, Defendant’s argument that he earns his living as doctor is a contention that lies outside of the allegations in the complaint or facts that can be judicially noticed.

  • Hearing

RAHMANY VS. SEENO CONSTRUCTION

While defendants attach the caption page from the 2012 case, which identifies “Violation of Building Standards as Set Forth in California Civil Code § 896,” this is not determinative of the claims or issues litigated. Additionally, Civil Code section 896 includes 45 building standards, only some of which are referenced in the current case. The statute could therefore potentially give rise to many different causes of action, depending on the particular defect.

  • Hearing

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. OETIKER, INC.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that it is not making any claims under Civil Code section 896 or under the Act, and that its complaint clearly seeks to recovery solely for a defect in a manufactured product, and thus is excepted from the Act under Civil Code section 896(g)(3)(E).

  • Hearing

RICHARD HILLENBRAND VS MAP DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

., Off the Wall Floors, On-Deck Coatings, Stamm Painting, Tate Construction, and Westco Construction for (1) strict products liability, (2) violation of standards set forth in Civil Code 896, (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (4) negligence, and (5) breach of contract. On October 24, 2018, the Map defendants filed a cross-complaint against numerous subcontractors.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AXIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. ALMADEN TOWER VENTURE, LLC, ET AL.

The Second 25 Amended Complaint, filed on April 4, 2018, sets forth the following causes of action: 26 (1) Breach of Express Warranties; (2) Breach of Implied Warranties; (3) Violation of Statute 27 (Civil Code, § 896, et seq.); and (4) Breach of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and 28 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO COMPEL JUDICIAL REFERENCE 1 Restrictions.

  • Hearing

ABBINGTON OWNERS' ASSOCIATION VS. SHAPELL INDUSTRIES

Many of the issues in the demurrer concern the Right to Repair Act, codified in Civil Code §§896 – 945.5, also commonly referred to by its legislative bill, SB 800 (the “Act” or “SB 800”), is one of two statutory schemes governing California construction defect litigation. The Act defines what constitutes a construction defect in California by establishing “functionality standards,” the violation of which is actionable as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

JACKSON GLEN COMMUNITY CORPORATION VS. ENCORE GLENDALE

Code §§896 & 897 et seq., (2) Fraud, (3) Negligent Misrepresentation, and (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty. MCEC was identified as Doe 1 and amended into the action on February 05, 2019. PRESENTATION: The instant demurrer was filed on May 16, 2019, contending that the Court lacks jurisdiction over MCEC because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with filing requirements provided in Civ. Code §896 et seq. and Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KEMPER INDEPENDENCE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. OETIKER INC

(Civil Code § 896(a).) The statute goes on to list requirements pertaining to windows, roofs, decks, foundation systems, hardscape, stucco, retaining walls, plumbing lines, sewer systems, showers, baths, waterproofing systems, soils, fireplaces, chimneys, and electrical and mechanical systems. (Civil Code § 896.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

STATE FARM GENERAL INS. CO. VS CIRCA DEVELOPMENT, INC.,ET AL

The cause of action is brought alleging that the defect at issue qualifies as an actionable defect under Civil Code section 896, and that all defendants failed to comply with provisions of Civil Code section 912. [Paras. 25, 26]. It is alleged that due to these violations, the parties are not required to comply with prelitigation procedures. [Para. 27].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JASON RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. V. MARTIN JARCHOW, ET AL.

Civil Code Section 896 states: “This title applies to original construction intended to be sold as an individual dwelling unit.” Plaintiffs’ FAC alleges that the construction defects arise out of a remodel, not original construction. Paragraph 10 of the FAC reads: “Defendant Jarchow purchased the Property in 2006 and performed a complete remodel through his company, Summerland Builders.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.