Photo of Tamara Boeck

Tamara Boeck

Subscribe to Tamara Boeck's Posts

Tamara Boeck routinely advises owners, developers and general contractors primarily in California, Idaho and Nevada.  Tami works with clients on a wide range of projects including commercial, residential and mixed-use projects, as well as construction-related aspects of oil and gas, mining, food processing, solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel, wastewater treatment and other industrial facilities.

In addition to counseling her clients on ways to avoid protracted litigation through thoughtful negotiations and effective contracts, she handles construction disputes from mediation through litigation or  arbitration, which often encompass significant business conflicts, project delay, workmanship and performance deficiency claims, as well as those matters involving lien laws, insurance coverage disagreements with insurers, claims involving toxic tort, product liability and catastrophic injuries. With  her depth of experience, she is able to assist and protect her clients in arbitration or trial when a pragmatic business resolution is not available. Tami has been listed in Best Lawyers in America© for Construction Law since 2010. She is immediate past chair of the firm’s Real Estate, Development & Construction group.

Click here for Tamara Boeck's full bio.

Follow:Read more about Tamara BoeckTamara's Linkedin Profile

A reminder from the Idaho Supreme Court for parties to a construction contract:  the plain language of the parties’ contract governs the obligations between them in the absence of ambiguity.  In City of Meridian v. Petra, Inc., No. 39006, 2013 WL 1286014 (Idaho Apr. 1, 2013), the Idaho Supreme Court reviewed a construction dispute between the City of Meridian and its construction manager, Petra.  Not atypically, unfortunately, a project ballooned from $12.2 million in 2006 to over $21 million by October 2008 for a variety of reasons.  As the project progressed, Petra, pursuant to its contract with the City, notified the City of the proposed increased costs of construction and the City approved them, or often the City directed the changes itself.  During this same time, Petra notified the City of Petra’s right to an equitable adjustment to Petra’s fee based on the changing nature of the project. At that time, Petra agreed to wait until the final project value was determined before submitting the fee request. Thereafter, Petra managed the project for the City through occupancy.  Approximately six months prior to occupancy, Petra issued a change order requesting an equitable adjustment in the amount of 4.7% of the excess of the original base contract, which was the same percentage used for the original fee and a significant change order previously. The City denied the request.

 

  When mediation didn’t resolve the dispute, the City filed suit against Petra for declaratory relief and alleged breach of contract, among other claims.  Although the case itself addresses a number of related and interesting topics regarding evidence at trial, evidentiary issues relating to the claimed breach by Petra, and attorney fees, the foundational issue addressed by the court is the clarity of the contract and the allowance of the equitable adjustment.  On that score, the trial court found against the City on all but the lesser claims, and awarded Petra $595,896.17 in costs and $1,275,416.50 in attorney fees, in addition to its requested (as adjusted) fee of almost $325,000.  

The Nevada Supreme Court has answered a question that developers and contractors have been asking for years:  can the statutory limitation period for a construction defect action be shortened?  The court answered in the affirmative but held that there must be no statute to the contrary and that the reduced limitation period must be reasonable …

A California appellate court recently held that the value of an original construction contract is admissible as evidence to limit a contractor’s right to recovery under Civil Code section 3123(a), even by a property buyer that was not a party to the construction contract. Appel v. Los Angeles Superior Court (CA No. B244590, Mar. 11, 2013). The net effect in this instance could be a reduction of the value of the contractor’s lien claim by at least $13.5 million. 

The underlying facts reflect an all-too-common scenario of a failed project. Here, a single-purpose entity developed a large condominium project, originally inked with a GMP of $65 million. Increases through construction by approved change orders moved the GMP to $81 million. Disputes arose, and the contractor thereafter claimed an additional $13.5 million above the $81 million GMP. Unfortunately here, several units of the project had been purchased by this point, and the buyers were then subject with the developer to the mechanic’s lien of the contractor. Prior to trial, the developer entity and its alter ego affiliates negotiated a pre-trial settlement with the contractor that included in part a restatement of the final contract GMP to $95.5 million, purportedly settling the issue of the “value” of the construction contract for the contractor to continue pursuing its lien claim against the unit buyers. During pre-trial motions, the trial court commented on the impact of the negotiated settlement and “expressed doubt as to whether the unit owners should be precluded from challenging the value of the GMP contract set forth in the settlement agreement:

 

COURT: Are you saying [the unit owners] don’t have a right to attack the . . . value of the contract which was agreed after the fact as part of the settlement?

[CONTRACTOR]: We don’t believe they have a right to attack that.

COURT: Well, that is just boggling to my mind. [¶] . . . [¶] [I]t totally boggles my mind, because you could agree to anything, anything [in the settlement].”

 

The trial court also stated that it saw “‘no purpose’ for the settling parties’ decision to raise the value of the GMP other than to hinder the unit owners’ lien foreclosure defense.” Although the trial court took the matter under submission, it later felt constrained to rely on an existing decision cited by neither party and ruled against the unit buyers, precluding them from challenging the post-lien GMP value set during the settlement between the developer and contractor.

Following the market crash in 2008-09, the $2.8 billion Fontainebleau development in Las Vegas was halted with 70 percent of the construction completed. Naturally, numerous mechanic’s liens were filed by contractors, subcontractors, professionals and suppliers ("claimants"). In the bankruptcy proceeding, the lenders asserted novel and potentially legally destabilizing theories against the claimants’ rights: a.) the…

The Third District Court of Appeal in Cal Sierra Construction, Inc. v. Comerica Bank (Cal. App., May 31, 2012, No. C060707) 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 641 (Cal Sierra), determined that lenders were precluded from enforcing property owner rights though a motion to release the mechanic’s lien and stop notice.  The court distinguished the…

A California appellate court has clarified for public owners and contractors (a) what the results may be if the owner does not timely sign a change order and (b) under what circumstances a change order is required. In G. Voskanian Construction, Inc. v. Alhambra Unified School District, No. B221005 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2012)…

In Pioneer Construction, Inc. v. Global Investment Corp. (Dec. 21, 2011, No. B225685), Cal.App.4th [2011 WL 6382113], the Second District Court of Appeal recently affirmed a timely topic in this depressed construction market:  lien claimants must protect their rights, and buyers of property out of bankruptcy must verify the validity of lingering lien claims.…

Indemnity and additional insurance provisions in commercial construction contracts may no longer be an “arm’s-length” negotiation in California. Dramatic changes are proposed in sb 474 (2011). We most recently saw this type of legislative intrusion directing contract language in the residential construction context with the significant modifications of Civil Code section 2728 a few years…

Now that the holiday frenzy has wound down, many have overlooked the necessity of updating their mechanic’s lien procedures in California. Effective January 1, 2011, prevailing California law imposes new requirements and notice procedures for effective lien actions on mechanic’s lien claimants. These changes immediately affect the preparation, service, and recordation of mechanic’s lien claims. California Civil Code…