This article explores Notices of Non-Payment under the Construction Act in closer detail, as well as their requirements and the consequences (or lack thereof) of non-compliance.
Deficiencies are a common reason for litigation in construction proceedings. Dissatisfaction due to deficient work can make homeowners act in a zealous manner – namely, firing existing contractors, hiring subsequent contractors to finish or correct remaining work, and litigating against the initial contractor for the cost of correcting such deficiencies. However, the law recognizes that reasonable opportunities must be provided to correct such deficiencies before setoff or claim rights are allowed.
Think all civil litigation follows the same procedure? Think again. Read our latest article to learn about the nuanced procedural differences under ordinary litigation and construction lien proceeding.
Three years into the Interim Adjudication process under Part II.1 of the Construction Act, it is apparent that what was promised as a quick and dirty approach to dispute resolution is turning into a fly-by-night process that creates more problems than solutions. In this article, the author shares his thoughts on some of these problems.
While litigation in construction lien issues takes place within the formal, court system, parties have the ability to take such disputes outside of their system and into the hands of their community leaders.
Settlements are always preferred to litigation, but it’s important to note the following procedural steps when finalizing a settlement in construction lien litigation.
Although construction lien proceedings do not extend the same rights as ordinary proceedings, the Construction Act allows claimants to demand information pursuant to Section 39. The Act extends a similar fact-finding ability to Owners/Contractors/other Defendants through a cross-examination of the lien claimant on the contents of their lien by way of Section 40.