Viewing entries in
Real Estate Law

Comment

Does This 2017 Iowa Decision Affect Your Real Property Contract Rights?

Every homeowner’s association or property management group is subject to certain covenants and restriction found in the real estate contracts. There is often a right of first refusal included in these contracts, providing the original seller with the right to deny the buyer from selling the property. The right of first refusal must be renewed within 10 years of when the interest appears of record by filing a written statement of extension in the county land records.

The following is an explanation of recent case law in Iowa dealing with “the right of first refusal.” In this case, the court held that an extension must be filed at the expiration of the ten-year period, or the right of first refusal is no longer enforceable under Iowa Code section 614.17A (2016). Section 614.17A applies to the facts of this case because the scope of the statute is an “interest in” real estate.

 

Westlake Properties LC v. Greenspon Property Management

No. 16-1463 Filed September 27, 2017 Westlaw link

 

Facts of the Case

Westlake Properties LC and Greenspon Property entered into an agreement to set up Greenspon’s purchase of Westlake’s property in 1997. An addendum to the purchase agreement provided Greenspon with the right of first refusal to purchase an adjacent lot. The notice of the sale and the right of first refusal were properly recorded in 1997. Westlake held onto that lot and eventually filed a quiet title action in April of 2016 alleging that Greenspon’s interest should be extinguished in accordance with 614.17A because they did not file a verified claim on or before ten years after the original filing.

Greenspon alleges that section 614.17A should not apply to the facts of this case because the claim arises under contract law, not against real estate. This case is used to decide whether the right of first refusal is “an interest or claim to real estate” subject to 614.17A and should be extinguished after ten years if it is not renewed.

 

Iowa Code § 614.17A

Section 614.17A(1) states ‘after July 1, 1992, an action shall not be maintained in a court, either at law or in equity, in order to recover or establish an interest in or claim to real estate’ if: (1) the claim arose or had been in existence for more than ten years; (2) the action is against the record-titleholder to the real estate in possession; and (3) the record-titleholder and his or her immediate or remote grantors have held chain of title to the real estate for over ten years.

Section 614.17A(2) allows renewal of the ten year period by filing a verified claim

 

Other Relevant Law

Restatement 3rd of Property defines rights of first refusal as “servitudes that directly restrain alienation of interests in land.” A servitude is “a legal device that creates a right or an obligation that runs with land or an interest in land.”

The Rule Against Perpetuities applies to right of first refusal. In Trecker v Langel, the objective of the Rule Against Perpetuities is to keep property freely alienable. 298 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa 1980). Under Iowa Code section 558.68, the Rule Against Perpetuities applies to “nonvested interests in property.” And in In re Estate of Claussen, it is held that option agreements are executory interests in property. 482 N.W.2d 381 (Iowa 1992). Option agreements and rights of first refusal are similar.

The marketable title act’s goal of improving the system for transferring real property should subject first-refusal rights to 614.17A’s recording demands. The majority of jurisdictions treat the rights of first refusal as a property interest and not merely contract rights. In In re Estate of Hord, a claim involving a future interest arises or exists when the interest appears of record, not when it vests, becomes possessory, or becomes actionable. 836 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2013).

 

Conclusion

A right of first refusal falls within the scope of an “interest in” real estate and must be renewed through a verified claim within ten years of its original and respective filing dates.

Greenspon’s property interest arose when the parties reached a contractual agreement regarding the right of first refusal on the adjacent lot and Greenspon recorded it in 1997. Greenspon’s failure to renew its interest before 2007 (ten years after the initial filing) led to its expiration.

If you have any questions about this case or the relevant case law, or are concerned about preserving any of your interests in real estate, please contact Jason Laughlin or Jeff Perkins at (515)608-4797. You can also email them at Jason@laughlinlawfirm.com or Jeff@laughlinlawfirm.com.

Comment

Navigating Electronic Signatures ("E-Signatures") in Real Estate Transactions

Comment

Navigating Electronic Signatures ("E-Signatures") in Real Estate Transactions

A Brief Examination of E-Signatures in Real Estate Settlements

The adoption of digital signatures, electronic signatures or “e-signatures” upon real estate transaction documents is now unavoidable in today’s ever-changing real estate market. As their acceptance gains steam, we’ve found many buyers, sellers and even their professional representatives may not fully appreciate under what circumstances e-signatures may be used, and where their use is inappropriate. Accordingly, we thought we’d visit some frequently asked questions by some of our clients and their representatives in the context of a typical residential real estate settlement. By no means is this post exhaustive of the subject. Contact your attorney, lender or settlement service provider for specific requirements.

What is meant by “e-signature”?

Although deceptively simple, it is best to know precisely what defines an “e-signature.” A good place to start is to consider what an e-signature is not. It most definitely is not a “wet signature,” or putting pen to paper. It is also not the practice of simply pasting a pre-existing signature image to a digital image or document. Nor is it inscribing an “/s/” near one’s typewritten name. And it is definitely not the same as using the italics font on Microsoft Word. An e-signature is a legally authenticated signature conforming to the requirements set forth under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (the “E-SIGN Act”), in combination with various state and local acts, and having the effect of being equal to the original paper copy documents from which they derive.

Essentially, a proper e-signature is obtained through a service that initiates a verification process with the signatory thereby creating a digital fingerprint generating and storing an audit trail that can uniquely identify the person signing. Of course, the generation of this information, as well as the storage of this information, is the backbone to making this process legitimate, and it must be done in accordance with the law and its related rules and regulations.

In practice, these legal standards are typically met by setting up an account through a third-party service willing to bear the responsibility of compliance. Hence, any party accepting a digital signature on a document should have already met the pre-requisites for obtaining and storing e-signatures before they begin considering how they will go about garnering digital signatures on documents. Typically, the e-signings we encounter are administered through professional vendors such as Adobe, Dotloop, and Docusign.

What are the general governing laws on e-signatures?

The limits to which an e-signature may be used in real estate transactions are drawn by federal law, state law, county rules and regulations, and individual lenders’ policies. The E-SIGN Act governs the federal side (See 15 USC 7001 et seq.), while the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (UETA) is the uniform act applicable at the state level. Most states have adopted in some fashion the UETA, and Iowa is no exception. (See Iowa Code § 554D.)

What does Iowa law say about e-signatures?

In part, Iowa law defines “electronic signature” as an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record. The chapter applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties' conduct.

A signature, and a resultant contract derived therefrom, cannot be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because electronic signatures are used. However, should another law provide that a record be presented in a particular way, posted in a particular place, sent, communicated or transmitted by a particular method, the record must be presented accordingly.

The authenticity of an electronic signature may be shown in any manner, including showing the “efficacy of any security procedure applied,” in determining whether a signature is actually attributable to the person so specified.

Changes or errors in an electronic record occurring in a transmission between parties to a transaction, may have significant consequences. Nonconformance to agreed upon procedures may mean that one party can avoid the effects of an erroneous record. However, the avoiding party must fulfill certain requirements to avail themselves of this protection. Notice of the error is but the first step.

What does Iowa law say about notarized documents using electronic signatures?

Iowa Code § 554D.113 states:

“If a law requires a signature or record to be notarized, acknowledged, verified, or made under oath, the requirement is satisfied if the electronic signature of the person authorized to perform those acts, together with all other information required to be included by other applicable law, is attached to or logically associated with the signature or record.”

Put simply, notarial officers may use electronic signatures so long as the substance of the notarial block has the information required by laws associated with the act. As of this writing, the law states electronic notarization in Iowa must be done by a notary public who has not only notified the Secretary of State’s office prior to electronically notarizing anything but also has received approval of their methods for notarization and “stamping” by the Secretary of State.
 

How are County Recorders treating electronic signatures?

Predictably, the County Recorders are somewhat hesitant to go headlong into electronically signed documents let alone paperless submissions. The Iowa Code affords some room to evolve by granting governmental agencies of this state the deference to determine whether, and the extent to which, the agency will create and retain electronic records and convert written records to electronic records. This is where further regulations by the Secretary of State and the Department of Administrative Services are a factor. We contacted some Recorders’ offices to discover they are still hoping to see more bright-line guidance from the Secretary of State when it comes to handling any type of electronically executed documents in Iowa. Hence, the default setting right now for 99 offices throughout the state is skepticism.

Something to consider for paper instruments submitted with electronic signatures is that any document that must be recorded with a County Recorder’s office will not be accepted if it does not satisfy their standards for execution. The universal barrier to acceptance by the County Recorder is whether a document has a proper acknowledgment, and electronically signed instruments are going to be subjected to higher scrutiny to be sure they meet those requirements. Acknowledgments in Iowa, whether signed in ink or electronically, must still be issued by an approved notary who witnesses the signatory act in person. That standard for proper acknowledgment alone advocates for maintaining the status quo. For all practical purposes, it has yet to make any sense for the notary and signers to use any means other than the tried and true wet signatures if everyone needs to be in each other’s presence.

What do federal laws say about e-signatures on real estate settlement documents?

There are common instances when an e-signature may be used on settlement documents that are not a part of the deed (or transfer) package, i.e. those documents required to settle a loan during a real estate closing transaction as defined under RESPA. In 2008, HUD issued a RESPA Reform Rule (73 Fed. Reg. 68204, November 17, 2008) that included substantive and technical changes to the existing RESPA regulations and different implementation dates for various provisions. In addition, HUD clarified that all disclosures required by RESPA are permitted to be provided electronically, in accordance with the E-SIGN Act. See 15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has further stated its acceptance of e-signatures on any such instruments so long as they comply with the E-SIGN Act’s disclosure, consent, signature, presentation, delivery, and retention requirements. See 12 CFR 1024.3.

The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) adopted consistent, but more stringent, requirements on accepting e-signatures. The FHA accepts e-signatures on all documents contained in the Mortgage Insurance Endorsement Documents binder. Additionally, FHA accepts e-signatures on documents associated with servicing or loss mitigation services, insurance claims documentation, and HUD Real Estate Owned (REO) documents. However, they will not accept e-signatures on any Note for HECM mortgages. Interestingly, the FHA also states explicitly that it will not accept any voice or audio signatures. Again, it is incumbent upon the mortgagee to ensure close adherence to the E-SIGN Act requirements, and the FHA expects the mortgagee to obtain any Authoritative Copies (as that term is defined in the Act) of the signatures and be their safe keeper. See 4000.1 II.A.i.a.i.(A)(4).

Who decides whether an electronically signed closing document is acceptable, and what’s the big deal?

As stated earlier, the County Recorder plays a significant role as gatekeeper in validating transfer documents. The whole transaction will not be valid if the transfer documents are not properly recorded.

Even if an e-sign transfer document should get past the County Recorder’s scrutiny, you can safely bet that the next title examiner to review the abstract containing such an entry will call out an objection if it does not align with the rules. Ultimately, that may cost the party “signing” (or their representative) to Simply lose time and money in correcting the deficiency, or it could also have the more serious effects of invalidating a property transfer or destroying notice of a mortgage to third parties. And that is but the tip of the liability iceberg.

Additionally, the decision on whether to accept an otherwise legally e-signed real estate settlement document is left to the individual policies adopted by each individual lender. Any settlement agent who represents a lender is going to defer to their client’s policy in each and every instance. In most instances, the requirements will vary as each lender seeks to satisfy the requirements of their many “secondary market” service providers. To be sure of those requirements, always contact your lender or their settlement agent to ascertain what’s appropriate.

Also, if an e-signature does not meet these requirements, any document signed using an e-signature, such as loan application forms or closing disclosures will not be valid under federally-applicable laws and regulations such as the Truth in Lending Act or Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Where do things go from here?

Last but certainly not least, there is the issue that is at the central concern of all these policies: fraud. It’s no secret that fraud runs rampant in the real estate industry. With a typical residential transaction involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, it is a veritable feeding frenzy for scam artists and hackers. Increased use of e-signatures simply invites additional opportunity for these criminals to access assets, so it would seem only appropriate if many of these institutions are somewhat hesitant to dive in to this technology before these newer standards have proven to be tried and true.

It may be difficult to confirm or prove that a typed name or mark was (or was not) intended to be an e-signature. It may be difficult to confirm or prove that an informal exchange of e-mails was (or was not) intended to be an e-contract. It may be difficult to confirm or prove that the person to whom an e-mail was sent (and not a third party with access to such person’s computer) was the person who responded with an e-signature. It may be difficult to prove that the other party to the e-contract altered it after its execution.

To date, there are no published cases discussing what constitutes an “e-signature” under the laws and, as such, the boundaries are still blurred, so REALTORS (and lenders and other businesses) need to exercise care in their electronic transactions with customers to avoid being (or to ensure they are) contractually bound.

That said, be aware that laws, rules and regulations, and lender preferences are evolving dramatically. With increased lender use of “electronic closings” and the potential advent of blockchain technology in real estate transactions, we are sure to see an ever-expanding use of the e-signature and developments in paperless security in our industry. Staying current on use of e-signatures is paramount. Note however that any efficiency that may have been gained through application of an e-signature is quickly lost if used in the wrong context. Communicate liberally with those document “gatekeepers” with which you regularly conduct business. It will save you a great deal of time and effort.

Comment

Comment

Update Regarding Homestead Tax Credit Applications!

Those of you who are avid followers of the Laughlin Law Firm blog (which we know all of you are!) will have noticed that we recently began looking into what counties in the mid-Iowa region are equipped to allow homeowners to apply for their Homestead Tax Credit applications online.

In doing so, we discovered that certain county sites published a requirement that a person must file their application in person. That prohibition seemed off, so we did some extra digging into the Iowa Code and the Iowa Administrative Code. Then, we inquired with the Iowa Department of Revenue and posited that such policies were invalid and inconsistent with state and administrative law. The Department said they would look into it and get back to us.

Sure enough, they did and they agreed. Not only that, they have since taken the initiative to notify all assessors’ offices that they are required to allow both personal and mailed forms of the application! The letter below was their notice to the assessors.

Meanwhile: Here is a link to the uniform Homestead Tax Credit application

We invite you to put it in your closing binder packet to better reflect your services to your clients. Better still, you can rely on us to bring it to the close since we now include that information in our closings.

Either way, now you can confidently advise your clients of their Homestead Tax Credit Application mailing rights and give them one more reason to leave the closing table impressed with you and your services.

policy letter - homestead app1.png

 

Comment

DMAAR 2018

Comment

DMAAR 2018

Another successful DMAAR Annual Event in the books! Here's a photo of just some of our talented real estate friends with our team members. We truly value our relationship with DMAAR, and our hats are off to all of the award participants, nominees and winners from Friday. We can't wait for next year!

 

Congratulations to all the 2017 Volume Winners (Individuals who sold over $10.7 million in 2017), all Unit Award Winners (Individuals closing 50 or more units), and Rookie Volume Winners (Individuals in their first consecutive 12 months of selling who sold a volume of sales over $7.5 million)

 

 

 

Here are some pictures from Laughlin Law Firm's experience at the fantastic event (click photo to view all):

 

Comment

Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now? Homestead Sign-up Online or In-Person?

Comment

Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now? Homestead Sign-up Online or In-Person?

Apprising borrowers of their rights and means to claiming their Homestead Credit is that extra effort that helps your clients know they are in good hands. To that end, our hard-working associate, Jeffrey Perkins, has compiled a list of counties in the mid-Iowa market area, with reference to their respective assessor’s address and website, so you will have that information readily available when it comes time to have that discussion.

As of 2017, a small handful of counties have made accommodations for your clients to apply for their credit online. Otherwise, the Iowa Department of Revenue rules state they have the option to either mail their application into the assessor’s office or appear at the assessor’s office to fill out the form on-site. Please note there are still some assessors that prefer your client show up in person. While that is technically against state law, and we’ve spoken at length with the Iowa Department of Revenue on the subject (and they agree), we’ve indicated those offices with an asterisk so that your client can confirm their level of obstinacy before sending.

As always, our team is available for any questions you may have. Please enjoy your New Year festivities!

 

Homestead Credit form {PDF Link}

 

The following counties have the capacity to accept applications online:

Dallas (online)

Marion (online)

Story (online)

 

The following counties can accept the form via mailing or personal submission:

Adair (in person/mail – 400 Public Square, Suite 1, Greenfield, IA 50849)

Boone (in person/mail – 201 State Street, Boone, IA 50036)

Clarke (in person/mail – 100 South Main Street, Osceola, IA 50213)

Jasper (in person/mail* – 101 1st Street N, Room 105, Newton, IA 50208)

Lucas (in person/mail – 916 Braden Avenue, Chariton, IA 50049)

Guthrie (in person/mail – 200 North 5th Street, Guthrie Center, IA 50115)

Madison (in person/mail – 112 John Wayne Dr., Winterset, IA 50273)

Marshall (in person/mail* – 1 E Main Street #8, Marshalltown, IA 50158)

Monroe (in person/mail – 10 Benton Ave East, Albia, IA 52531)

Polk (in person/mail* – 111 Court Ave, Room 195, Des Moines, IA 50309)

Union (in person/mail* – 300 N Pine Street, Suite #8, Creston, IA 50801)

Warren (in person/mail – 301 N Buxton St., Indianola, IA 50125)

Webster (in person/mail – 701 Central Avenue, Fort Dodge, IA 50501)

Comment

Rushing to the County Treasurer to Avoid the 2018 Property Tax Cap by Prepayment? Not So Fast, My Friend!

Comment

Rushing to the County Treasurer to Avoid the 2018 Property Tax Cap by Prepayment? Not So Fast, My Friend!

While scarfing down a quick hot lunch on a ridiculously cold Iowa day (below zero at the time of writing), I came across the following article on CNN.com: http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/26/pf/prepay-property-tax/index.html.

It appears that in high-dollar property tax states, homeowners are lining up to prepay their property taxes by year end in order to avoid the $10,000 deduction cap recently adopted pursuant to The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, now efficiently renamed to comport with parliamentary procedure as the "To provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018" Act (it’d be hard to make this stuff up).

While prepayment may seem attractive, and assuming you have thousands of dollars laying around after the holiday buying season, take a few moments to consider whether this action will yield result you desire. For instance:

1.    Is this really the most effective use of your dollars, even assuming you’ll realize the deduction? Might that money be more effectively utilized in some other higher-yielding investment with a more certain return?

2.    Will your county allow for prepayment? And if not, will you be able to effectively petition for a county policy revision in time to realize the gain?

3.    What will the IRS have to say about this action? I’m betting a lot. Bear in mind that the IRS has not weighed in with guidelines and regulations governing implementation of the bill. Will a payment made in 2017 for taxes upon the homestead applicable for the fiscal year 2018 be deductible irrespective of when made? If you’re in a state like Iowa where property taxes are paid “in arrears,” what will be the effect of that retroactive annual taxation? Will it bode more favorably (i.e. a 2nd half property tax installment payment due in March of 2018 is actually applied to taxes imposed upon the property for the period of January through June of 2017)? Will that cap be imposed upon 1st half property tax payments due in September of 2018 for the tax period of July through December of 2017? Those are really big “if’s”. Be aware that most, if not all counties, will decline to estimate taxes and/or accept tax payments that are not yet “certified”.

4.    If you do take the plunge, you’ll want to be doubly sure that your payment will be effective in the current fiscal year. Each county in Iowa, for instance, has some discretion as to how they accept payment, and as to how they credit payment. So, as the article astutely points out, you’ll want to ensure you get the check there appropriately.

5.    Do you itemize your deductions? If not, then you won’t be able to deduct state and local taxes anyway. There are also some considerations to be made for those subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Have you spoken with your CPA? It would be wise.

6.    Do you have an escrow account as a condition of your mortgage? Have you contacted your lender about your prepayment plans? Lenders, under federally-backed mortgage loans, have strict rules for handling escrow funds and for dealing with excess taxes and insurance (an excess being created by your prepayment). Furthermore, you’ll want to ensure that the rate of tax collection for purposes of escrow in 2018 is adjusted for the prepayment. Overpaying into escrow is likely not a wise strategy.

According to SmartAsset.com, the State of Iowa has an average effective property tax rate of 1.44%, ranking it as the 14th highest rate in the country. So, if Zillo is correct, and the median home listing value in Iowa stands at $169,000, that amounts to a tax bill of about $2,500 - well below the $10,000 federal cap. Perhaps it’s much ado about nothing (unless of course, your house is worth in excess of $700,000). So if you have money to burn, tread lightly, and if you don’t, it may not be best to tread at all.

 

**Please keep in mind that I am not YOUR attorney, and that the above is not intended as legal advice for your individual circumstances. Seek out a qualified attorney and accountant or CPA for proper advice on the foregoing.

Comment

Comment

New Iowa Construction Defect Law May Cause Defect Claimants to be SOL

As is typical with the passing of any July 1st, the Iowa Code tends to get a makeover. These changes can go unnoticed, or they can be total game changers. Naturally, all of that depends upon where your interests lie.

One significant change may not have made many headlines, but it has certainly grabbed the attention of the state’s developers, contractors, insurers, attorneys, and buyers in the commercial and residential markets alike. This was the amendment to the statute-of-repose period set forth in Iowa Code §614.1.

Iowa Code §614.1 was amended to reduce the statute-of-repose period for any real property improvement project that begins after July 1, 2017. This limits the window for bringing suit against a real property contractor if that contractor’s work negligently results in an unsafe or defective condition to the property. The previous statutory period for bringing suit was 15 years for single-family and two-family residential dwellings. That period has been reduced to ten years. Additionally, most other structures, including larger residential dwellings and commercial buildings, have seen this window reduced from 15 years to eight years.

In recognizing the application of this changeover, one must first distinguish between a Statute-Of-Repose (SOR) and its more widely recognized cousin, a Statute-Of-Limitations (SOL). Both are time constraints that limit the time period in which a person is allowed to bring a lawsuit against another party. The key difference between the SOR and SOL is when the clock starts ticking. The SOL begins running on the date a party is injured or discovers their injury. This date otherwise is known as the event that gives rise to a cause of action. An SOL applies in instances of physical injury and in many criminal matters. By contrast, a SOR begins running the moment a specific event occurs, namely the completion of a construction project or property improvement.

How significant is this change? Well, if you ever find yourself on the plaintiff’s side or the defendant’s side of pending litigation, the very first thing either attorney checks is whether or not the statutory period to bring suit has expired. Someone who would otherwise have a perfectly good legal claim against someone else is going to be barred from bringing their lawsuit once the expiration date on that time restriction passes. In that sense, it is quite literally a deal maker or deal breaker.

Hence, the smaller the window someone has to sue over their claim, the less likely a possible defendant is going to get tied up in costly litigation and the more likely a possible plaintiff will need to recognize their position and plan accordingly. As always, it comes back to perspective.

The benefits and risks of this change are best met with a thorough assessment of your position in these hierarchies and how the more nuanced factors of this law relate to that perspective. Chances are this shift directly affects your business, your contractors, your sub-contractors, your insurance costs, and it might be as intimate as how it affects the very place you call home.

 

We invite you to plan accordingly.

===

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/28/new-laws-noxious-weeds-eradication-spending-cuts-public-art-take-effect-july-1/390407001/

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=87&ba=sf413

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/614.pdf

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/21/iowa-legislature-approves-limitations-lawsuits-filed-over-home-defects/99451176/

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SOL/860352.pdf#SF413

(SF 413, pgs 60-61)

SENATE FILE 413 – Improvements to Real Property – Unsafe or Defective Conditions – Limitations on Actions BY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. This Act reduces the statute-of-repose period in cases arising out of the unsafe or defective condition of an improvement to real property for certain types of property. A statute-or-repose period differs from a statute-of-limitations period in that a statute of repose establishes a time period after which a lawsuit cannot be filed regardless of whether an injury has occurred. A statute-of-limitations period begins at the date of the injury or upon discovery of the deficiency.

Under prior law, a case arising out of the unsafe or defective condition of an improvement to real property was subject to a 15-year statute of repose. The Act provides that for actions arising out of a nuclear power plant or interstate pipeline, the period remains 15 years. For actions arising out of the construction on single-family or two-family dwellings occupied or used primarily for residential purposes, the period is reduced to 10 years. For actions arising out of any other kind of improvement to real property, the period is reduced to eight years. However, for actions arising out of intentional misconduct or fraudulent concealment, the period for the statute of repose is 15 years, regardless of the type of real property. If the unsafe or defective condition is discovered within the final year prior to the expiration of the applicable period of repose, the period is extended for an additional year.

The Act does not reduce the statute of repose for real property improvements in existence prior to July 1, 2017, or to improvements to real property, whether construction has begun or not, that are the subject of a binding agreement as of July 1, 2017.

====  

Comment