Ownership and Licensing in Design Agreements
April 14, 2026 —
Abby Dvorkin - Snell & WilmerThe ownership and licensing of design documents in professional services agreements play a significant role in protecting the interests of the design professional and the project owner during and after project completion. The ownership or licensing of the drawings provision typically outlines who owns the drawings and specifications, who can use the documents, and how the documents can be used during and after the project.
Project owners and developers should understand that payment for design services does not automatically transfer ownership or an exclusive right to use the professional design. Under U.S. copyright law, the default rule is that the design professional retains ownership of the instruments of service absent a contractual provision transferring ownership or a license. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act provides that copyright protection applies to “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” and includes “architectural works.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. A design professional may only transfer copyright ownership in writing. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Abby Dvorkin, Snell & WilmerMs. Dvorkin may be contacted at
advorkin@swlaw.com
Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros Secure a $0.00 Settlement on a Multimillion-Dollar Construction Defect Case!
April 14, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPartner
Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader
D. Ryan Efros’ client was a construction supervisor on a palatial mansion. The homeowners claimed millions of dollars in damages and asserted the client was a general contractor (GC) and so responsible for the alleged defects. Jeff and Ryan took more than 15 depositions, reinforcing their trial strategy theme: that the client was not a GC, but Plaintiffs were. They secured significant concessions from Plaintiffs, pressed Plaintiffs’ own negligent construction choices, and made the risk of trying the case intolerable. On the eve of trial, Plaintiffs backed down, settling out Jeff and Ryan’s client for $0.00.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal
April 14, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:
A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”
“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.
“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”
Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
Massachusetts Construction Industry Continues to Wait While Prompt Payment Law Is Put to the Test
March 31, 2026 —
Catherine Maronski - Construction Law ZoneEarlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard argument in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co. et al., a dispute concerning the state’s Prompt Payment Act (PPA). Although a decision has yet to be issued, it could potentially pose widespread implications for high-value private construction projects moving forward – and perhaps backwards.
The PPA, G. L. c. 149, § 29E, enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2010, has become a keystone in the construction industry. It was enacted to address, in part, downstream cash flow issues that tend to pervade construction projects by mandating a series of strict guidelines for submitting, and responding to, payment applications for private projects valued over $3,000,000. Amongst these requirements are set timeframes to respond to an application, as well as what must be contained in an application rejection. Critically, if an owner or upper-tier contractor fails to fully comply with all the statutory requirements in response to a proper payment application, the application is automatically “deemed to be approved” and payable. Significantly, however, this is not always the end of the line.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Catherine Maronski, Robinson ColeMs. Maronski may be contacted at
cmaronski@rc.com
Newmeyer Dillion Ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 Guide
May 26, 2026 —
Newmeyer DillionNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – May 14, 2026 - Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion has been ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 guide and recognized as a leading firm in Litigation: General Commercial for Orange County.
Newmeyer Dillion was selected based on an independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of the firm’s experience, expertise and caliber of talent where the firm stood out for its exceptional work and is recognized in Litigation: General Commercial.
Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff expressed the firm's gratitude: “It is an honor for our firm to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Spotlight California 2026 guide. This acknowledgment reflects our commitment to providing high quality legal services tailored to the unique needs of our clients.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer Dillion
Construction Liens and the “Substantial Performance” Doctrine
April 08, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a recent case dealing with a construction lien, the driving issue was whether the air conditioning contractor “substantially performed” before recording its construction lien against residential property. The importance here pertains to the substantial performance doctrine with respect to construction liens. The Third District Court of Appeal explained, with relevant citations, this doctrine as follows:
Under Florida law, a contractor is entitled to a mechanic’s lien if he complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, governing construction liens, and “has substantially performed the contract.” Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quotation omitted); Langley v. Knowles, 958 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The substantial performance doctrine recognizes that a contactor who complies with all of the provisions of the contactor’s lien statute is entitled to enforce a lien if he has substantially, but not completely, performed his contractual obligations.”). Substantial performance is performance “so nearly equivalent to what was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price subject to the promisor’s right to recover whatever damages may have been occasioned him by the promisee’s failure to render full performance.” Ocean Ridge Dev. Corp. v. Quality Plastering, Inc., 247 So. 2d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Moving in Before Substantial Completion? The Risks of Early Owner Occupancy
March 24, 2026 —
Sydney Koby - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
On many construction projects, particularly large projects facing schedule pressure, owners may begin occupying or using portions of the project before the work reaches substantial completion. This is often due to operational needs, phased turnover, or market demands that drive owners to take possession of all or part of a project while construction activities are ongoing. While early occupancy may seem practical, it can blur the lines of responsibility between owner and contractor and can create significant legal and practical complications.
These disputes are especially common on large, complex projects where punch list work, system commissioning, and closeout activities overlap with owner use. Without clear documentation and carefully drafted contract provisions, early occupancy can undermine an owner’s ability to enforce completion requirements while simultaneously exposing the contractor to claims of delay, inefficiency, or interference.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sydney Koby, Jones WalkerMs. Koby may be contacted at
skoby@joneswalker.com
