At the Arizona Law Firm of William A. Miller, PLLC our knowledge, empathy and experience allow us to vigorously fight for and defend your inheritance rights. We actually try cases. We know the Sun City, Arizona and West Phoenix Courts well. Will, Probate, Elder Law and Estate litigation includes disagreements after a parent or family member dies. It includes family fights about inheritance, probate and trusts disputes, disagreements and challenges to wills. Family fights and ultimate litigation can start over who gets named as a beneficiary, gifts on death, wills, trusts, real estate, warranty deeds/tenant in common deeds/JTWRS deeds, payable on death bank accounts, other property held in joint tenancy, powers of attorney, guardianships, conservatorships, undue influence, vulnerable and incapacitated adults. Bill Miller won a very infamous Maricopa County Arizona case in 1994 named Hurst v. Sneed. In this horrible family lawsuit, the daughter, Sneed had been named as a joint owner of her WWII father’s CD’s at an Arizona bank. Unbeknownst to him, she waltzed into the bank one day and withdrew all of the CD’s. The bank was immune from prosecution because, after all, the father, Hurst had named his daughter as a co-owner. The jury did not find her defense (he wanted me to get/inherit the money before he died so he could see me happy) worth darn and awarded every cent of the CD’s and punitive damages.
If you want straight answers to these Probate, Will, Trust or Elder law questions, please call the law firm of William A. Miller (Bill) at 602-319-6899 in Scottsdale Arizona.

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.

Late 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.

An Arizona doctor, Walter Simmons is among 12 doctors, pharmacy owners and marketing pros accused of a fraud and kickback scheme that prosecutors allege involved a sham medical study used to bilk up to $102 million from the publicly-funded federal health program for military family members. This is sickening to those doctors who play by…

You can get money from the Arizona Register of Contractors (ROC) in Arizona through their recovery fund. It’s a mini insurance policy for flakey contractors. In Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors a homeowner sought recovery for subpar contracting. The ROC intervened and moved to dismiss the case against the Recovery Fund. It said, the…

Civil cases are almost always complicated and require experienced lawyers. This goes from the initial intake, through discovery, to trial and to post judgment wrangling. For instance, in Arizona, a passenger injured while in a taxi sued the taxi company for damages related to the injuries. A Maricopa County jury awarded the passenger $700,000. Not…