Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

By Rick Erickson https://www.swlaw.com/people/rick_erickson

Yesterday, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an interesting opinion in Hatch Development v. Solomon. Hatch illustrated two key points in real estate and construction litigation: (1) a contractor’s indemnity does not always require an expressly written obligation; and (2) when facts are undisputed that a contractor is solely at fault for a construction defect, a property owner can be indemnified after paying a neighboring property owner for damages caused by the contractor’s defective work.

Hatch was a homeowner who hired Solomon to install sewer lines. After installation, heavy rain led to muddy water in the sewer lines, suggesting a defect in the installation. … Read More »

Author: Rick Erickson | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Successful Laches Defense Becoming Commonplace in Colorado

By: Neal McConomy

Boiler plate language in responsive pleadings often includes “Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches” (or “The doctrine of laches bars Plaintiff’s claims” if you prefer the active voice).  However, litigation of a laches defense is fairly rare, and a defendant successfully arguing a laches defense is something of a legal Haley’s Comet, only less reliable. Often, courts refuse to consider a laches defense if a statute of limitations applies. See e.g., Ivani Contracting Corp. v. City of New York, 103 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 1997); and Lyons P’ship v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789 (4th Cir.… Read More »

Author: nmcconomy | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

ABOR Fences Out a Property Owner’s Quiet Title Action

By: Cory L. Braddock 

In May of last year, the Arizona Court of Appeals determined that “the statute of limitations does not run against a plaintiff in possession who brings a quiet title action purely to remove a cloud on the title to his property.”  Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 661 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 31 (App, May 28, 2013).  The Cook decision was discussed in detail in our prior blog post entitled The Clock Doesn’t Tick-Tock for Owners in Possession.  Now, the Arizona Court of Appeals, presumably with some regret, has been forced to address real property statute of limitations issues for the second time within six months. … Read More »

Author: Cory Braddock | Leave a comment Tagged ,

Share this Article:

The Clock Doesn’t Tick-Tock for Owners in Possession

By: Cory L. Braddock

The Arizona Court of Appeals recent decision in Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, 661 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 31 (App, May 28, 2013) reiterated its forty-three year old holding in City of Tucson v. Morgan, 13 Ariz. App. 193, 195, 475 P.2d 285, 287 (App. 1970) and held that “the statute of limitations does not run against a plaintiff in possession who brings a quiet title action purely to remove a cloud on the title to his property.”

Clock

 In 2001, Jerry Cook asked the town of Pinetop-Lakeside (the “Town”) to abandon a public right-of-way to him because the right-of-way was no longer needed for public use. … Read More »

Author: Cory Braddock | 1 Comment Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article: