|
4857 The fact that a builder remained in possession of premises for approximately 16 months following completion of the project did not prevent the ten-year statute of repose (CCP 337.15) on actions for latent construction defect from being applicable to an action by plaintiffs who purchased the premises when the builder was no longer in possession and who claimed damages resulting from work preformed during construction of the building, but not from work after completion.CitationGUNDOGDU v KING MAI (Latent Defect) 171 CA4 310 [See: CCP 337.15; Lantzy v Centex 31 C4 363, T/AT 9/03; Pine Terrace Apts v Windscape 170 CA4 1, T/AT 2/09; SD USD v County of SD 170 CA4 288, T/AT 2/09]
|
|
