Blog

The Kitchen Sink

Posted on May 14, 2014 in Sub-Prime Mortgages in Arizona

The investigation of fraud presents a hard core challenge due to the fraudster’s desire to hide his crimes. These guys require lawyers who are familiar with the types of schemes undertaken by fraudsters and the methods they use to hide their tracks. After 28 years, our law firm has seen it all! When we sue, we toss the kitchen sink at these guys!

Our lawsuits include:

  • Quantification of Fraud-Related Losses
  • Top Notch Expert Testimony
  • Analysis of  Cash Flow & Asset Misappropriation
  • Employee Fraud Investigations- Often the Meekly Bookkeeper
  • Fraud Prevention by Computer and Old School Methods
  • Analysis of Ponzi & Other Financial Schemes
  • Financial Transaction Tracing / Reconstruction
  • Hidden Asset Searches and Analysis
  • Involvement of Governing Authority SEC, FBI, AZ Attorney General, FINRA, Local Police
  • Stop Loss Measures
Feel free to call Bill Miller 602-319-6899 to discuss your case.

FURTHER CONTACT INFORMATION:

William A. Miller, Esq.
William A. Miller, PLLC
8170 North 86th Place, Suite 208
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258

Phone480.948.3095 (Direct) or 602.319.6899 (Cell)

Emailbmiller@williamamillerpllc.com

The hourly rate of the firm is $325.00.

Commercial cases and disputes on a contingency basis are possible, subject to a written retainer agreement.

…be careful what you ask for

Posted on May 13, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business Disputes

As 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 of their stock certificates. Next year, Caruthers filed a suit against Clinton suing w/ the kitchen sink game plan— common law fraud, consumer fraud, securities fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. In late2008, the Caruthers’ lawyer sent a letter to Clinton tendering the complete rescission of the stock transactions.

On the last day of trial, the Caruthers’ counsel informed the court that the Caruthers would elect the remedy of rescission.  Clinton moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the Caruthers had not demanded rescission before.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Caruthers on and $15,000 in punitive damages.  The parties papers on whether the Caruthers were entitled to rescission.  Reversing its earlier ruling, the court entered an order denying rescission, based on its conclusion that the Caruthers had unreasonably delayed in rescinding and had waived their right to rescission by ratifying the stock purchase transaction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred in applying the election-of-remedies doctrine, but that the Caruthers invited the error.  In Arizona, the election of remedies doctrine provides that a party who has been fraudulently induced to enter into a contract must choose to either disavow the contract and seek a return to the status quo ante, or affirm the contract and sue for damages for breach.  If, however, alternative theories of recovery are factually consistent, an inconsistency does not arise until one of the remedies is satisfied and consistent remedies may be pursued concurrently even to final adjudication.  The Court of Appeals concluded that an election of remedies was never necessary in this case because the Caruthers did not seek to recover on inconsistent theories of liability.  They did not sue for breach of contract, and their case did not depend on affirmation of the agreement  Because the remedies of damages and rescission were not based on inconsistent theories, the Caruthers should not have been compelled to choose one remedy to the exclusion of the other.  The Court concluded that it could not, however, reverse the judgment on these grounds because the Caruthers invited the error by failing to object to the notion that they were required to choose between remedies.

The Court also affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the Caruthers were not entitled to a jury trial on rescission and that equitable defenses apply to rescission.  By its plain language, A.R.S. § 44-2002(A) does nothing more than authorize a seller to seek rescission.  Nothing in the statute suggests that the seller’s choice transforms rescission from an equitable remedy to a non-discretionary one.  The Court nevertheless concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by denying rescission based on its finding of prejudice.  Although the court looked to appropriate factors, it wrongly defined the delay period and misconstrued the deleterious result caused by the delay as a “prejudicial” result.

Feel free to call William A. Miller at 319-6899 to discuss. His office is in Scottsdale.

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 & escrow.

Z’Tejas 1 vs. Zipps 0

Posted on January 24, 2014 in Arizona Trials

What happened when a local powerhouse sports bar, http://www.zippssportsgrills.com/ sued a developer for trying to add a southwestern grill known as, http://ztejas.com/ to one of its shopping centers?

The developer fights back.

The Law Firm of William A. Miller is proud to announce the developer of the shopping center at 16th and Bethany in Phoenix, Arizona used our firm to fight this case. We are also happy to state that, we won. Patrons are now enjoying their margarita’s at Z’Tejas and Zipps is licking its wounds for filing such a case in the first place.

It was a classic war. Millions and millions in valuation and cash-flow were at stake. Zipps hired one of the top law firms in Arizona and every phone call, letter, email, pleading and the actual hearing was fought tooth-and-nail. But, in the end the Court saw through the smoke screen that Zipps had offered to stop the Z’Tejas from breaking ground and it was not long before the case was dismissed.

The case was covered in the Arizona Republic: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20130419phoenix-ztejas-location-opens-legal-battle.html

The docket can be found at: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2012-006285

Feel free to call Bill Miller at 602-319-6899 if you need help in a complex case or one requires that extra effort that a big firm simply can not provide.

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 & escrow.

Ironite Fertilizer Victory

Posted on in Arizona Loan Workout

On October 15, 2013 after four years plus of bare-knuckle litigation and high stakes legal positioning the investment bankers who financed Ironite have their victory. Case closed. The law firm of William A. Miller represented these investment bankers when the former operator of Ironite Fertilizer sued them for a host of unfounded claims demanding millions…

Read More

Landlord Liability for Tenant Acts

Posted on July 31, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

If a landlord knew or should have known of activities by the tenant that could cause a danger or nuisance, i.e., damage to neighbors, to surrounding property owners, or even to a passerby, then the landlord can be held liable for tenant bad acts. See Klimkowski v. De La Torre, 175 Ariz. 340 (1993). In the Klimkowski…

Read More

No Statute of Limitation on Quiet Title!

Posted on June 12, 2013 in Az Business Law

On May 28, 2013, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside that there is no statute of limitations for a quiet title lawsuit. 1 CA-CV 12-0258. In short, if an owner of real property gives permission to a neighboring owner to drive over their property for ten or twenty years, the…

Read More

Lerner v. DMD Realty. LLC

Posted on June 10, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

In the Lerner case, 648 Ariz. Adv. Rep 35 (CA 1, 11/27/12) the Arizona Court of Appeals continued to uphold the stigmatized property statute. The statute gives non  disclosure bogie’s. It limits the things that MUST be disclosed and cuts off liability for other non disclosures that common sense would suggest need be disclosed. ie….

Read More

Your Word is Your Bond

Posted on March 21, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

It’s hard to figure out why lawyers will not quote what the cost of a suit will be. While, variables do exist, your lawyer should know what these variables might be. That can be factored in. Well, the legal marketplace is changing, and companies are now demanding value-based engagements with their outside firms that create…

Read More

The End of National Century

Posted on March 15, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Just weeks before a scheduled trial, Credit Suisse has reached a $400 million settlement in litigation over the demise of National Century Financial Enterprises. The settlement resolves claims that bondholders were defrauded to the tune of $2 billion when National Century collapsed amid a health-care financing scandal in 2002 — and reportedly brings the bondholders’…

Read More

How to Sue for Home Defects

Posted on March 6, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

At the Law Firm of William A. Miller located in Scottsdale Arizona we are often asked to represent buyers who purchased defective homes. Here is a simple legal analysis we perform: What is the timing? The statute of limitations for breach of a written contract is six years from the date that the breach occurred….

Read More
© Copyright 2008 William A. Miller, Esq., All Rights Reserved