Case Law Summaries

Lange v. Curcio

• Opinion Date: September 18, 2003
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

CONTRACTORS; NEW HOME WARRANTY—The jurisdictional deadline for filing a claim under the New Home Warranty program may be extended for equitable reasons such as a contractor not presenting the warranty information to the homeowner.

An owner contracted to have a home built on its land. Even though the home was substantially complete, the builder did not deliver a Certificate of Occupancy until legal action was threatened. It was delivered on September 1, 1999. The contractor never delivered the Certificate of Participation or the new home warranty booklet. After the owner moved into the home, it discovered construction defects that were covered by the New Home Warranty program in the category of defects occurring within the first year. Nonetheless, the owner gave written notice of the defects to the contractor by August 11, 2000. Under the regulations for the New Home Warranty Act, it is a jurisdictional requirement that notice of a first year warranty claim be filed within forty-four days after the builder receives notice of the defects. In this case, that date was September 25, which was the same date that the owner filed a claim. Case law, however, teaches that “the date of filing is the date the document is received, not the date it was mailed, and ... [] statutory time limitations for requesting an administrative adjudicatory hearing are said to be mandatory and jurisdictional. Nonetheless, the doctrine of substantial compliance has been applied to excuse the failure of a party to comply with the literal terms of the statute under circumstances where there is: (1) a lack of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) a series of steps taken to comply with the statute involved; (3) general compliance with the purpose of the statute; (4) reasonable notice of the party’s claim; and (5) a reasonable explanation of why there was not strict compliance with the statute.”

Here, the contractor was fully aware of the claims being made in a timely fashion. The notice of claim was filed. The owner’s lack of awareness of the time limitations may have resulted from the failure of the contractor to provide a warranty booklet. “The Act was enacted to protect the consumer involved in the most important transaction made by most people in their lifetime.” Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge did “not believe that the forty-four day filing provision ... was intended to be a stumbling block which must be inexorably applied to deprive the homeowner of the remedies afforded by the Act, even if it did not fully comply with its literal terms.” Consequently, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the owner substantially complied with the spirit intended by the regulations and permitted the claim to proceed.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.