2007-03-29 CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS OR ROUTINE REPAIRS?A Protocol Primer for Community Association Property Managers The construction boom of the 1990s and the early part of this decade has resulted in a number of issues affecting the role of the property manager. First, and perhaps foremost, the "boom" resulted in the appearance of many new properties subject to the Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act -- vesting property managers with more work to do and more clients to serve. At the same time, a secondary result of the...
2006-03-03 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMSMinnesota community associations often face construction defect issues arising out of original construction and improvement projects. This article discusses basic legal principles related to those construction defect claims. A wide array of statutes apply to construction defect claims by Minnesota community associations. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 327A provides a statutory basis for pursuing breach of warranty claims by a homeowner, including community associations on behalf of its...
2005-02-11 MINNESOTA COURTS AND LEGISLATURE CLARIFY CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LAWSLast year, a major construction defect case was decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In addition, the Minnesota Legislature enacted a new statute of repose, clarifying divergent Court decisions on the issue. The Court decision and new statute provide clarification to property owners, construction contractors, attorneys and judges. The Vlahos Decision Last summer, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided the Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc., 676 N.W.2d...
2004-05-14 HIGH COURT EXPANDS GROUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT SUITS: REVERSING THE VLAHOS CASEOn April 1, 2004, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed two lower court decisions that had previously impaired or eliminated many property owners' rights to pursue damages against their builders for water intrusion, rot and deterioration, and mold. Both of the lower courts had previously struck down the plaintiff's claims against the builder of his home, ruling that the statute of limitations to sue the builder had expired. The Supreme Court reversed those rulings, and ordered that the case be...
|
|
 |
|