Christopher Hill – Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA

Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

Originally posted 2019-11-25 09:00:29.

Sometimes doing the expedient thing and what looks good at the time can come back to bite you. Just ask 3M Company.

In Faneuil, Inc. v. 3M Co., the Virginia Supreme Court considered a customer services subcontract between Faneuil and 3M relating to a toll collection contract 3M entered into with ERC. The subcontract had a “pay if paid” clause in it requiring payment to 3M from ERC before ERC was required to pay Faneuil, a written change order provision and a base monthly payment to Faneuil for the services that could be reduced in the event of less than expected toll collections. Further, the subcontract stated that if either party settled 3rd party claims, that settlement would not bind the other party to the subcontract absent consent or Court order. Continue reading Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

Happy New Year 2020 from Construction Law Musings

Another year of work, fun and interesting cases and relationships is in the books. I hope all of you had a great 2019, and for that matter a great decade of the 2010s. Here’s to a great 2020 and the start of a prosperous new decade.

Without further ado, Happy New Year from Construction Law Musings and The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC.

Construction Law Musings Turns 11

11 years ago this tiny announcement post started my journey into blogging (or is is “blawging”?). Since then, I’ve met a few construction lawyers here in Virginia that refer to me as the blog guy. To be recognized for the work I do here at Construction Law Musings, something that benefits me (and I hope the readers), is an honor.

The blog has since taken on a life of its own in many respects, allowing me to meet some of the great construction pros that have provided a guest post or two for Musings and adding their different perspectives. Musings has also kept me up on at least most of the trends in Virginia construction law by making me post consistently (though sometimes less consistently than others). Now, over 800 posts and eleven years later, I find it hard to believe that so much time has passed and effort has been put into what started with a general idea that I’d post from the perspective of a Virginia construction lawyer.

Over the last 10 years my children have gone from little kids to college (the older two) and high school and I couldn’t be more proud of each of them. These three are a great joy for me to watch grow up. Our two dogs continue to make life more furry, warm, and loveable and, saving the very best for last, my wonderful, supportive and beautiful wife continues to make life at the Hill house a great place to live. Without the support of the world’s best family, Musings and the practice of law wouldn’t be the fun that it is. Continue reading Construction Law Musings Turns 11

Happy Halloween from Construction Law Musings

It is time for spooky goblins, princesses, zombies and other things that go bump in the night. I hope you take some time having fun and avoiding the real scary stuff like mechanic’s liens and payment bond claims!

Here’s wishing you and your family have a safe, wonderful and of course spooky Halloween from my firm and Construction Law Musings.

As always, I welcome your comments below. Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.

With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]

Originally posted 2017-08-10 10:29:16.

The Supreme Court of Virginia Building, adjacent to Capitol Square in Richmond, Virginia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Virginia mechanic’s liens are a powerful and tricky beast that in most cases require absolute precision in their preparation. However, an interesting opinion recently came out of the Virginia Supreme Court that may provide a bit of a “safe harbor” from the total form over function nature of a mechanic’s lien.

In Desai, Executrix v. A.R. Design Group Inc., the Court considered a lien memorandum that had what could be described as technical flaws in the preparation of the mechanic’s lien by A. R. Design Group. The basic facts are that A. R. Design Group used the form of lien found in Va. Code Sec. 43-5 (also found as Form CC-1512 at the Virginia Judiciary website) when it recorded two lien memoranda for two pieces of property owned by a trust. Relating to one of the two properties, the memorandum failed to identify the “Owner” as the trustee of the trust. On the memoranda relating to both properties the affidavit verifying the amounts claimed did not identify the signatory as agent for A. R. Design Group, instead listing the agent as the claimant and further failed to state a date from which interest is claimed or a date on which the debt was due. Continue reading With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]