Empathy List Archives

                                             <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/>   <https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper>  

                                            [cid:image013.png@01D6A70D.506EF230] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_kubicki-2Ddraper_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=luZSNc5BERs1Z5eNUoA-RaMFuP9ZlYKC3ZYEOepcKz0&m=SNlMQPMp8h-iJbYL-okg-B884zVolkl3Dt7SOg-33y0&s=bU36sMhBDy64Vy2wpZ1YFqnUJZQXvtgojLRBCKC7cd4&e=>  [cid:image014.png@01D6A70D.506EF230] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_KubickiDraper&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=luZSNc5BERs1Z5eNUoA-RaMFuP9ZlYKC3ZYEOepcKz0&m=SNlMQPMp8h-iJbYL-okg-B884zVolkl3Dt7SOg-33y0&s=u09vAwF1UVPXx54HGer3awWGwEX2zoIArN70_UfPdjk&e=>

 Civil Procedure seems to be more of a general/broad use for discovery, as opposed to this particular statute that specifically calls for discovery under certain conditions, so it seems like the statute should control

 The wording of the judge’s order seems to only address that discovery can be made through civil procedure, but the statute calls for sanctions. 558 should function to avoid (excessive) litigation and making a request for discovery per 558 fits this objective

 Perhaps a 57.105 motion should have been made specifically citing non-compliance with 558

                                            [cid:image005.png@01D6A70D.62D4E060] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/>  [cid:image006.png@01D6A70D.62D4E060] <https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper>

 Civil Procedure seems to be more of a general/broad use for discovery, as opposed to this particular statute that specifically calls for discovery under certain conditions, so it seems like the statute should control

 The wording of the judge’s order seems to only address that discovery can be made through civil procedure, but the statute calls for sanctions. 558 should function to avoid (excessive) litigation and making a request for discovery per 558 fits this objective

 Perhaps a 57.105 motion should have been made specifically citing non-compliance with 558

                                            <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/>

                                            [cid:image005.png@01D6A716.4D246C00] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/>  [cid:image006.png@01D6A716.4D246C00] <https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper>

          1.  Plaintiffs’ firms frequently spam out 558 notices to every contractor who even thought about working on the project (only a slight exaggeration), creating a lot of unnecessary work for a lot of (non) parties.

          2.  The reported “defects” frequently are not well understood by the plaintiffs or their attorneys before sending the notice, and clarity from the owner’s attorney often is not forthcoming pre-suit.

          3.  All that said, 558 notices sometimes do serve a useful pre-suit function, as shown in the Altman Contractors case as just one example.  That case involved several hundred defects, all of which Altman was able to resolve without the condo association ever filing suit.  (The case was about insurance coverage for the 558 process, not on the defects themselves.)

                                            [cid:image005.png@01D6A716.4D246C00] <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/ScYtCyPJ9PSN2XJoFzGoAd/>  [cid:image006.png@01D6A716.4D246C00] <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/K-vECzpx7pHRwgnqF2CHvv>

                                            <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/>

                                             <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_kubicki-2Ddraper_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=luZSNc5BERs1Z5eNUoA-RaMFuP9ZlYKC3ZYEOepcKz0&m=SNlMQPMp8h-iJbYL-okg-B884zVolkl3Dt7SOg-33y0&s=bU36sMhBDy64Vy2wpZ1YFqnUJZQXvtgojLRBCKC7cd4&e=>   <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_KubickiDraper&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=luZSNc5BERs1Z5eNUoA-RaMFuP9ZlYKC3ZYEOepcKz0&m=SNlMQPMp8h-iJbYL-okg-B884zVolkl3Dt7SOg-33y0&s=u09vAwF1UVPXx54HGer3awWGwEX2zoIArN70_UfPdjk&e=>  

          1.  Plaintiffs’ firms frequently spam out 558 notices to every contractor who even thought about working on the project (only a slight exaggeration), creating a lot of unnecessary work for a lot of (non) parties.

          2.  The reported “defects” frequently are not well understood by the plaintiffs or their attorneys before sending the notice, and clarity from the owner’s attorney often is not forthcoming pre-suit.

          3.  All that said, 558 notices sometimes do serve a useful pre-suit function, as shown in the Altman Contractors case as just one example.  That case involved several hundred defects, all of which Altman was able to resolve without the condo association ever filing suit.  (The case was about insurance coverage for the 558 process, not on the defects themselves.)

                                             <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/>   <https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper>  

          1.  Plaintiffs’ firms frequently spam out 558 notices to every contractor who even thought about working on the project (only a slight exaggeration), creating a lot of unnecessary work for a lot of (non) parties.

          2.  The reported “defects” frequently are not well understood by the plaintiffs or their attorneys before sending the notice, and clarity from the owner’s attorney often is not forthcoming pre-suit.

          3.  All that said, 558 notices sometimes do serve a useful pre-suit function, as shown in the Altman Contractors case as just one example.  That case involved several hundred defects, all of which Altman was able to resolve without the condo association ever filing suit.  (The case was about insurance coverage for the 558 process, not on the defects themselves.)

                                             <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/>   <https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper>  

clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org

Re: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied