Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert.hampton
23rd and tremont slated for 80 for-sale condo units. Just down the street on 20th they are developing more for-sale condos, and the Coloradan just broke ground. After so long with no new developments how are these guys finally becoming viable without anything to address construction defects?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjo13
I believe some of the steps the city took are contributing.
|
I think it has little to nothing to do with the actions the city took. The ordinance probably didn't hurt, but I think what makes a bigger difference is the fact that there is certainty on the horizon.
The real game-changer was the decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals in Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc. in May 2015. One-third of Denver's ordinance was just a restatement of Vallagio anyways. In that case the Court of Appeals essentially held that a condominium declaration drafted in a specific way can require that construction defect claims brought by the association must be decided in arbitration, not litigation. (Specifically, that declaration required the developer's consent to amend the arbitration provision, and consent was not obtained.)
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari in June 2016. I haven't been watching too closely, but I don't think the court has decided yet. But certainty is coming very soon. Assuming the Supreme Court does not overturn the COA, a developer who drafts the declaration correctly now has the ability to avoid litigation with binding arbitration.
So after that, I think the other two-thirds of what the City did is really just gravy. And much less likely to be challenged if it becomes a moot point following the ruling from the State Supreme Court. If you have an enforceable arbitration clause, after all, it's not going to matter much that the City of Denver says you need a majority written consent of owners to sue - you already can't sue!
Anyways, if you're a gambler - and most developers are - now is a good time to fire up your engines. You'll still have time to change course if things go south again.
EDIT: This really must look like the nuclear option for those in the state legislature who opposed reasonable compromise. Assuming they won't have the votes to pass something the other way in response to the case, if the Supreme Court upholds this, homeowners will lose the ability to ever sue going forward. Which is not what reformers wanted. It might re-frame the political debate, though. Obstructionist democrats might have to quickly re-think their positions.
Prev
Denver did apparently pass a very good law to address the defects issue.
There is a good amount of what should be more reasonably priced units - they're the one whose architecture we complain about that will presumably meet that need at some point.
Linear Mode
