We recently represented a prestigious Phoenix doctor in a complex commercial jury trial. The Plaintiff was represented by the venerable law firm of Dickenson Wright. With law offices in many States and over 350 lawyers, these are the ‘big dogs’. Yet, at the end of the day we won and here is what the good doctor said…
“My original lawyer told me to settle a $3,000,000 claim against me for $xxx,xxx.xx. I asked Bill Miller for a second opinion and he agreed with me. I hired him and he went right to work filing paperwork with the Court. Because the Plaintiff would not agree to anything, unfortunately it went to trial. The jury found in my favor and reduced the claim against me to only $30,000. Bill was personally invested in my case and I am grateful to him.” Dr. J.A.R.
At the law firm of William A. Miller, PLLC in Scottsdale we thrive on this type of litigation. We are happy to look over your case. Call us at 602-319-6899 or stop by at 8170 North 86th Place, suite 208 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 for coffee and a chat. 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.

Back in late 2013, we closely follow a title dispute where, First American issued title insurance policies for two parcels for which Johnson Bank was the lender. After the purchase, the owners of the land discovered undisclosed covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&Rs”), which prevented development. After the owners defaulted, Johnson Bank foreclosed and made claims under their title insurance. First American and Johnson Bank clashed as to the date that should be used to calculate diminution of value, with First American arguing that it should be the date of foreclosure and Johnson Bank arguing it should be the date the loans were issued. Arizona follows the majority rule, which calls for valuing the property as of the date a title defect is discovered. But a lender is in a different position than an owner. The valuation date for a loss under a lender’s title insurance policy is an issue of first impression in Arizona. The insurance contract itself was ambiguous as to the valuation date, so the Court resolved the question by looking to “social policy and the transaction as a whole,” construing remaining ambiguity against the insurer.
Citing authority that the valuation date for a lender’s loss should be the date of the loan because the purpose of the loan is frustrated from the outset by a title defect, the Court further noted that in this case the title defect was the direct cause of the default that caused Johnson Bank’s damages. The Court also suggested that, unlike owners, lenders do not benefit from appreciations in property value. If the loss was valued from the foreclosure date on a lender, the title insurance company could benefit from falling real estate values without facing any risk from rising values.
The bottom line is that when foreclosing or fighting a foreclosure be very careful in determination of valuation issues. More than adverse tax consequences are at issue. At the Law Firm of William A. Miller e have experience in these area and we are happy to assist you. Call Bill at 602-319-6899 or stop by at 8170 North 86th Place, Suite 208 Scottsdale, AZ 85258. 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.

In 2010 AEA Federal Credit sued Yuma Funding, Inc. alleging breach of several loan agreements and requesting damages and the appointment of a receiver.  Yuma Funding had obtained three hundred loans from AEA to assist customers in purchasing vehicles from an auto dealership.  AEA filed the complaint after Yuma Funding defaulted and because it learned…

The Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 provided for no income tax to a borrower on any deficiency after a foreclosure or a short sale of a mortgage used to purchase a home, or make improvements to the home. The Act expired December 31, 2013. They used to call these taxable events phantom income. Here’s…

The nation’s patent court issued a “public reprimand” of a big time IP lawyer and made him give up his post. In a 14-page order, the eleven judges reprimanded Edward Reines of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP for attempting to solicit clients with a complementary email sent to him by Judge Randall Rader, the chief…