The Georgia Right to Repair legislation has been on a fast roller coaster ride over the past two months. The more salient provisions of the right to repair statute include (underline indicates an addition; strike through indicates a deletion):
- The definition for "Action"' has been expanded to include damages or other relief in connection with a dwelling or common area. "Common area" means the common areas, improvements, and facilities that are owned or maintained by the association in a common interest community.
- If a claimant receives a written statement that the contractor will not proceed further to remedy the defect or if the contractor fails to serve the claimant with the required written offer or written statement within the time prescribed by subsection (f) of this Code section, the claimant may bring an action against the contractor for the claim described in the notice of claim without further notice except as otherwise provided by applicable law.
- A construction defect that is discovered during the pendency of an action filed in compliance with this part may be added as a supplemental or additional claim to the pending action if failure to add the claim would prejudice any legal rights of the claimant or the contractor; provided, however, that the claimant shall comply with the requirements of subsection (a) of this Code section, and such action shall be immediately stayed until completion of the notice of claim process, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
- An association may bring an action against a contractor to recover damages resulting from construction defects in
any of the common elements or limited common elements area of the a common interest community only. Such action may be maintained only after, provided that:
(1) The association first obtains the written approval of each unit́s owner whose interest in the common elements or limited common elements will be the subject of the action;
(2) A vote of the unitś owners to which at least a majority of the votes of the members of the association are allocated; The members of the association have voted to approve commencement of an action by two-thirds of the votes cast, by statutory written ballot as provided in Code Section 14-3-708 or have approved commencement of an action by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the total membership at a meeting of the members at which a quorum is present;
As detailed by the Georgia Legislative Action Committee (LAC), the chronology of this legislation is a testament to the complexities of the legislative process:
- HB 1243, the Georgia LAC's bill, was introduced February 3, 2006, and after discussions and amendments, the House Committee on Judiciary favorably reported the bill, as substituted, on February 28th.
- This bill became stalled on the House Floor.
- Meanwhile, SB 573, prefiled in mid-February and introduced February 21st, would:
... amend Chapter 3 of Title 44 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to regulation of specialized land transactions, so as to provide that the seller may withdraw escrow funds in excess of 1 percent of the purchase price of a condominium in order to fund construction and development of the condominium property; to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
- After being amended, SB 573 was expanded to include: dispute resolution/resolution of construction defects, notice of and response to defect claims, and handling the discovery of additional defects after the original notice of a claim is made.
- The text of HB 1243 was added to the Senate passed SB 573 on March 9th by the House Committee on Judiciary and the Committee substitute was favorably reported to the House on March 22nd.
- The House approved the substituted bill mid-day March 27th.
- The Senate concurred with the House substitute legislation on March 30th, the evening of the last day of the Georgia legislative session. Georgia SB 573 as passed 3-30-06
- SB 573 (as of 4/3/06) awaits governor action.
Intelligence from the Georgia LAC is that the original Senate bill provided some pro-developer changes to the Condominium Act that the Georgia Chapter Board opposed. However, as is all to frequent in the legislative game, some give and take was necessary to get the right to repair changes included. As a result, the LAC had to withhold opposition to the original Senate bill.
But CAI was not the only group that had to modify position mid-stream: the LAC also reports that developers were strongly pushing the original Senate bill forward, and were forced to accept CAI-friendly amendments to the right to repair bill as the cost of getting their legislation approved.
The nature of state government affairs is that legislation can move at lightening speed. It is not uncommon for a bill to be introduced in the morning and then heard in a committee later that day. This process requires diligence, hard work, loads of coordination and communication to all parties (legislators and staff, LAC members, chapter membership, lobbyists, coalition partners, and yes, opponents), and as clearly demonstrated with the saga of SB 573, a willingness to compromise a little for the larger gain. While SB 573 is not the most ideal right to repair legislation that industry might want, what is significant is that it is a significant step in the right direction (especially in light of how many players were involved in the multitude of amendments–it is a testament to the LAC's perseverance and negotiation expertise).
Congratulations to the Georgia LAC and Chapter members who worked so hard on this legislation and the other bills that the group followed this session.