Real Estate Investing or Buying in Arizona
Litigation in Arizona is About to Explode
Posted on March 23, 2020 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateOn this website, a few years ago, we wrote… for over 33 years the Law Firm of William A. Miller has ‘seen it all’. Well, that was until last week. Litigation in Arizona for Fraud, Contract Breach and various business torts will explode, not unlike the days of the RTC. As most of you know, the Federal Reserve showed it would do virtually anything—lowering rates to zero, extending loans to businesses (looks like socialism), backstopping funds to municipalities and purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars of government debt—to help bolster the U.S. economy. This will lead to a nightmare scenario of the US Government picking favorites. I read the association who lobbies for movie theaters want a bailout. Musk and Bezo ‘need’ billons for their space missions. In my opinion TARP in the late 2000s, simply benefited the rich.
Let’s applaud congress and the President for starting with payments to the ‘worker’. If you have or anticipate business problems on the horizon, give Bill Miller a call at 602-319-6899. We are a small law firm that remembers well not only the great recession, but also the market meltdown of 1987, RTC of 1990 & the tech crash of 2001. If we cannot handle your case (unlikely), we will get you to a firm that can.
Attorney Fees in Arizona Courts
Posted on October 10, 2018 in Arizona Real EstateAt the real estate, contract, commercial and fraud recovery law firm of William A. Miller, located in in Scottsdale Arizona, we are often asked: “may I get my attorney fees back”? This is a big issue to ponder for folks about to file a lawsuit. We have heard it for 30 plus years. In fact, the Attorney Fees Manual for the State of Arizona is about 4 inches thick. When may attorney fees be awarded to the winner? As a general rule, in tort claims, seldom. In contract claims or those that arise out of certain statutes, the answer is often, very often. Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals in Cook v. Grebe allowed attorney fees in spite of the plaintiff losing many of his claims. The loss of claims is relevant only to the court’s determination of whether to actually award fees and in what percent. In Cook, two neighbors sued for claims over the ownership of property. The plaintiff claimed adverse possession and private nuisance. The defendant counterclaimed for quiet title, conversion, unjust enrichment, and trespass. The defendant prevailed on quiet title and trespass. The Plaintiff failed to prove conversion and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff lost on some claims, won on others. The trial court awarded partial fees to the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the partial fee award. A.R.S. § 12-1103 provides that the prevailing party in a quiet title action is eligible for a fee award. Here, that statute applied to both the quiet title and adverse possession claims and the defendant prevailed on those claims. The outcome of other claims does not affect who is the prevailing party that is eligible for fees under A.R.S. § 12-1103. Be careful of what claims you bring in a lawsuit. You can win, but ultimately, loose.
Feel free to call Bill Miller at 602-319-6899 to further discuss your case.
We also handle, Fraud, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title/escrow.
Lender Law
Posted on October 12, 2017 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateLate this summer, the Arizona Court of Appeals in Bank of America, N.A. v. Felco Business Services, Inc. ruled that a claim of senior priority under the doctrine of equitable subrogation is not waived for failure to object to a trustee’s sale.
Two owners took out a loan and deed of trust from Countrywide. Months later, they took out another loan and deed of trust from a different lender. Then they refinanced the first loan and deed of trust with a new bank. The owners used the refinanced loan (secured with a third deed of trust) to pay off and release the original loan from Countrywide.
Then they defaulted on their loan to the second lender. The second lender noticed a trustee’s sale and notified Countrywide. Countrywide, a poster child for fraud and incompetence, did nothing. After the sale, Bank of America acquired all Countrywide assets in a bailout. Bank of America sued saying the third deed of trust for the refinanced loan had priority over the second lender’s deed of trust under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, which allows a deed of trust to assume the priority position of an earlier deed. The trial court held that A.R.S. § 33-811(C) required that a senior lien be asserted as a defense or objection to the trustee’s sale, such that the failure to object to the sale waived Plaintiffs’ claim of senior priority under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that equitable subrogation is not a defense to a trustee’s sale and does not constitute a waiver under A.R.S. § 33-811(C) because lien priority is a separate matter from the validity of a trustee’s sale. Defendants could have conducted the sale even if Plaintiffs had asserted that it had a senior lien before the sale. A.R.S. § 33-811(C)’s express language does not preclude assertions of equitable subrogation. This law remained available to Bank of America after the trustee’s sale. Because equitable subrogation is an equitable remedy and its application depends on the particular facts of each case, the Arizona Court of Appeals remanded the matter back to determine whether applying the doctrine is applicable.
The card deck is very stacked in Arizona for the lender/bank/note holder. You must be very careful when borrowing and twice as careful when a default occurs under a loan. Feel free to give Arizona attorney Bill Miller a call (602-319-6899) if you are in a situation with a bank or lender that requires a second set of eyes.
We also handle, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title and escrow.
Arizona Construction Law and Attorney Fees
Posted on October 11, 2017 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateNot every lawsuit gives rise to attorney fees if you win. Yet, the Arizona Supreme Court just ruled that the successful party on a claim for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability qualifies for an attorney-fee award under either a contractual fee provision or A.R.S. § 12-341.01. see Sirrah Enterprises v. Wunderlich…
Read MoreArizona Rules of Civil Procedure = Truth Finding
Posted on June 7, 2016 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateProsecutors are in trouble after lawyers representing a doctor accused of fraud alleged the U.S. attorney’s office has been stealing documents. In court papers filed May 26, lawyers wrote prosecutors had gained access to discovery of the defense. According to the defense, an informant said an FBI agent had received CDs containing duplicates of discovery…
Read MoreContractor v. Employee
Posted on October 3, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateThe Kansas Supreme Court just issued an opinion that hundreds of truck drivers who delivered packages were employees and not independent contractors. This has huge tax, benefit and healthcare repercussions for FedEx. According to the court, the drivers sued FedEx alleging they were improperly classified as independent contractors under the law. The drivers are seeking…
Read MoreBuilder be Aware
Posted on July 11, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateHome Builder be Aware! On April 22nd, 2014, HB 2018 was signed into law by Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer. The bill will amend two key anti-deficiency statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-729 and 33-814, the former relating to judicial foreclosures and the latter to non-judicial foreclosures. Borrowers have relied upon both of these statutes in order to…
Read MoreThe Confidentiality Agreement
Posted on June 15, 2014 in Arizona Real EstateConfidentiality agreements are common in real estate & business. Sometimes they are used to get an investor to get his ‘eye off the ball’. Or they are often viewed as routinized documents unworthy of close reading. WRONG! When drafting and negotiating confidentiality agreements you should be aware of broad restrictions on your actions. For example,…
Read MoreEEOC- Whistleblower’s Get Ready to Blow!
Posted on June 14, 2014 in Arizona TrialsIn the last few years, whistleblower claims are on the rise. These claims now comprise 41% of the more than 93,000 discrimination charges filed in 2013, according to a February report from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is an increase of 28% over 10 years. At the same time, particularly since the…
Read More…be careful what you ask for
Posted on May 13, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business DisputesAs they say, you need to be careful what you ask for…In the summer 2006, Clint Underhill purchased 64 shares in Underhill Holding Company, Inc. (HC) from David Caruthers and Caruther’s wife for $6,000. Several months later, the Caruthers wrote to Clinton and accused him of knowingly misrepresenting HC’s value. The Caruthers demanded the return…
Read More