Arizona Law Regarding Business Disputes

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 alignment and incentivize the elimination of waste and excessive work. Large corporations—the ones law firms covet as clients—find better value and achieve better results with value-based alternative fee arrangements (VBFs).

According to data provided by members of the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), home-appliance maker Whirlpool put in place a system that emphasizes hitting benchmarks on budgets and giving bonuses for ending legal claims sooner rather than later. In the process, it cut its legal costs by about 15 percent. Sherwin Williams cut its spending by a similar amount using VBFs. And Home Depot adopted new billing procedures in 2008, hiring outside lawyers using fixed fees and retainers. As a result, Home Depot cut its legal fees in half.

At the Law Firm of William A. Miller in Scottsdale, Arizona we are happy to arrange a value-based fee agreement and we will stick to it, after all… your word is your bond.

Feel free to call William A. Miller, Esq. 602-319-6899

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.

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’ total recovery in the case to $1 billion. That is about one half of the loss. 11 years ago, I was the first lawyer to file suit against the perpetrators, including Credit Suisse, in this Ponzi scheme. For a lawyer, being involved in this was like reaching the Super Bowl. We litigated this in Florida, Arizona, Washington DC, New York, Ohio and California. The bad guys went to jail, the lawyers made a bunch of money, the investors got back most of their money and I proved a solo practitioner can fight the big guys. We will be posting key pleadings on this web site soon. This part of the case was covered by Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-14/credit-suisse-to-take-chf134-million-charge-on-ncfe-settlement.html

Call us at 602-319-6899 for further questions.

William A. Miller, Esq. Attorney at Law. 8160 North 86th Place, suite 208 Scottsdale Arizona 85253.

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.

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. See A.R.S. §12-548.  This six-year statute also applies to claims by both the original buyer and subsequent buyers against homebuilders for breach of the contractual implied warranty of proper construction, but this claim is limited to no more than eight years after completion of the home, no matter when the construction defect was discovered.  A.R.S. §12-552.  The statute of limitations for fraud is generally three years from when the fraud was discovered. A.R.S. §12-543.  The statute of limitations for negligence is generally two years from when the negligence was discovered.  A.R.S. §12-542.

Who pays for this loss?

A winning party is entitled to attorneys fees in breach of contract and in fraud claims.  In negligence claims, however, no fees are awarded. So, sue for contract breach! The homebuilder may be liable to the buyer for breach of the contractual implied warranty if there was improper construction.  The buyer would have four more years under the eight-year limitation to file a claim against the homebuilder because the home was built four years ago.  The buyer should be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees under A.R.S. §12-341.01.

What do the Forms say?

Under the Arizona Association of REALTORS® purchase contract the seller has a contractual duty to disclose to the buyer known defects in the home.  If the seller knew of the defect the buyer would have six years after discovery of the defects to file a claim for breach of written contract against the seller. Finally, the buyer would only have three years to file a fraud claim against the seller, but should be entitled to attorneys fees for prosecuting this fraud claim.

Can we shotgun (sue everyone) this?

Buyers are always upset with the brokers in these cases. Remember, the real estate brokers were not parties to the purchase contract.  Therefore, there is no breach of contract claim and the buyer would only have three years to prosecute a claim against the brokers for any fraudulent non-disclosure, and only two years to prosecute a claim for any negligent non-disclosure, i.e., the brokers should have known of the defects.   Good luck with that one. If the real estate brokers knew of, and fraudulently failed to disclose the defect, the buyer is entitled to attorneys fees.  If the real estate brokers were only negligent, i.e., should have known of the defective roof, the buyer is not entitled to attorneys fees.

Call us at 602-319-6899 for further questions.

William A. Miller, Esq. Attorney at Law. 8160 North 86th Place, suite 208 Scottsdale Arizona 85253.

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.

Investor Loss? Another Deep Pocket to Sue

Posted on January 7, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Back in 2002, when I broke the NCFE billion dollar bond fraud case, I sued Moody’s, Fitch and Standard & Poor’s. Portions of the case have been reported in National Law Books, See Parrett v. Bank One, N.A. (In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enters. Inv. Litig.), 323 F.Supp.2d 861, 878 (S.D. Oh. 2004). My fellow lawyers were suspicious of…

Read More

Arizona Anti-deficiency law

Posted on February 27, 2012 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

In M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Mueller, 1 CA-CV 10-0804, the Arizona Court of Appeals said that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute applies to those who buy land with the intent to occupy the property upon completing building a home even if they do not complete construction and actually occupy the property.  In Mueller, the family bought…

Read More

Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement

Posted on February 15, 2012 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Some folks love and others hate the recent $25-billion federal-state mortgage foreclosure settlement, but there’s no getting around one huge and significant issue: Besides, prolonging the crisis, there’s a large, sink hole right in the middle of it. The hole is that if your home loan has been bought from your lender by Fannie Mae…

Read More

Mortgage Forgiveness & Taxes

Posted on December 13, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

When your lender reduces and “forgives” debt, it used to send a Form 1099 for the amount of reduced or forgiven debt. This amount needed to be included as income on your tax return. It is often called phantom income. But, because of new law, there’s a big exception when it comes to mortgage debt…

Read More

Those who Teach…

Posted on September 19, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Az law scottsdale lawyer good trial lawyer

Read More

What is Right is Right

Posted on September 15, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business Disputes

A new group has made even Karl Marx do ‘back flips’ in his state owned grave. Politicians get asked all the time to sign pledges — about war, abortion, taxes and countless other issues. Now, a coalition of far left legal groups is asking people to sign a new pledge “to support the whole Constitution.”…

Read More

New Law Regarding Arizona Foreclosure

Posted on February 24, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Under Arizona Senate Bill 1259, we may become the first state to require lenders to prove they have the legal right to foreclose by proving up a list of all owners of the deed of trust, under a bill passed yesterday by our Senate. The law, which is headed to the House after being approved…

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