search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
LEGAL ISSUES


On appeal, United argued that the trial court erred by ruling that Coast was entitled to withhold the retention payments because a good faith dispute existed between Coast and United.


Appeals Court Weighs In Te Court of Appeal agreed with


United’s argument, concluding that it is improper to withhold retention over a dispute that does not relate to retention. At the outset, the Court acknowledged that Section 7107 functions identically to Section 8814 with respect to public works so that Martin Brothers and East West Bank were precedential and relevant. Te Court further acknowledged that when the trial court decided United Riggers, the prevailing authority on Section 7107 was Martin Brothers, but that later, a different court of appeal, in East West Bank took the opposite view that withholding the retention is justified only if the dispute is about the retention itself. After concluding its juxtaposition


of Martin Brothers and East West Bank, the United Riggers Court affirmed the holding in East West Bank. Te Court noted that Coast did


not deny that it owed United the full retention. Te only dispute was over whether United was also entitled to other payments it claimed. Te Court opined that to favor Coast under these facts would unduly increase the leverage of owners and primes over smaller contractors and subs by discouraging subcontractors from making legitimate claims for fear of delaying the retention payment.


Appellate Courts Split Te disagreement between the


Second District in East West Bank and United Riggers, on one hand, and the Tird District in Martin Brothers, on the other hand, continues to create a split of authority among California’s appellate courts. It remains to be seen how or if California’s four other District Courts of Appeal will address this issue, but with two decisions now sharply


diverging from Martin Brothers, it appears the split will be resolved in favor of East West Bank and United Riggers. Ultimately, the California Supreme


Court may need to step in and resolve the conflict. In the meantime, owners and


contractors can minimize their exposure to prompt payment penalties by erring on the side of caution and withholding retention only in the event of good faith disputes relating to the retention itself, including mechanics liens, stop payment notices, or perfor- mance deficiencies. In the event of disputes of another


nature, owners and contractors would be well-advised to release retention proceeds within the time period prescribed by Public Contract Code § 7107, Civil Code §§ 8812 and 8814 and other related statutes. 


Mary Salamone is a senior partner


and Anthony Niccoli is a partner at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo. Visit www.aalrr.com.


ROGERS JOSEPH O’DONNELL San Francisco  Washington DC


The Construction Law Practice Group Serving the AGC for more than 35 years


Recognized by Chambers USA as leading law firm 311 California Street


San Francisco, CA 94104 415.956.2828


www.AGC-CA.org


875 15th Street NW, Suite 725 Washington, DC 20005 202.777.8950


www.rjo.com Associated General Contractors of California 15


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24