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 that one of Yuma’s owner’s wife was destroying business records.  The court entered an order appointing a receiver.

Yuma’s owner Stevenson and Sherman personally appeared at court proceedings but did not retain counsel, did not file an answer or an objection to the appointment of the receiver, and did not request a hearing on the receivership.  AEA accordingly applied for entry of default, which was entered by the court on March 8, 2010.  In June 2010, after the receiver had been operating Yuma for months, AEA requested that the receivership be terminated and that all property in the receiver’s possession be turned over to AEA to satisfy Yuma Funding’s debt.  The receiver joined the request and the trial court entered an order releasing the receiver on July 16, 2010.

In December 2012, AEA filed a motion to dismiss and for release of the receivership bond.  Yuma then filed its first appearance and after a thirty day extension, a written objection from Yuma, and oral argument, the trial court denied AEA’s motion for voluntary dismissal but released the receivership bond.  In November 2013, Yuma Funding filed a motion to set aside the order appointing the receiver and seeking to “restore the status quo ante as it existed on January 22, 2010,” alleging jurisdictional defects and due process violations.  The trial court denied Yuma Funding’s motion on January 20, 2014 and Yuma Funding filed its notice of appeal on February 5, 2014.

On appeal, AEA argued that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.  The Court analyzed A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(b) which provides that an appeal may be taken “[f]rom an order . . . [g]ranting or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction or appointing a receiver.”  Yuma Funding argued that the removal of a comma between “injunction” and “or appointing a receiver” in a 1974 amendment meant that the “refusing to grant or dissolve” language applies to “appointing a receiver.”  The Court did not agree, reasoning that “the mere deletion of the grammatically optional serial comma, in the absence of any other changes,” did not indicate “a legislative intent to change the scope of [the Court’s] appellate jurisdiction with respect to receivership orders[.]”

Yuma also argued that the terms “preliminary injunction,” “temporary restraining order,” and “receivership” should be treated interchangeably within A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(b).  The Court again did not agree, noting that “the use of different terms in [the statute] evidences an intent to treat the circumstances differently for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.”  The Court then held that the plain language of A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(b) did not grant jurisdiction of an appeal from an order refusing to set aside an order appointing a receiver.

Yuma lost big time. In Arizona Corporations, LLC’s and Limited Partnerships may not be represented in Court by their owners. They must have lawyers.

Feel free to call Bill Miller from Scottsdale, Arizona at 602-319-6899 if you need help in an Arizona Court proceeding. His office is off the 101 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.

The 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 to recoup retroactive costs and expenses, as well as overtime. The state court issued the opinion in response to a request from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering appeals in 20 class-action suits, including the one in Kansas. All those had been decided in FedEx’s favor.

The Kansas court’s opinion is a setback for FedEx in a long-running dispute between it and some delivery drivers about whether they were contractors or employees before the company changed its business model in 2011, when it started contracting with corporations that employed drivers. In August, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against the company in a similar case that the company is appealing. The bottom line is that one must carefully document an the agreement and be honest in abiding by it.

At the law firm of William A. Miller we can help draft an independent contractor agreement and explain the benefit or danger of such. Call Bill at 602-319-6899 to discuss it or stop by for a visit at 8170 North 86th Place Suite 208 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258.

If you ever saw the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding you would remember that the bride’s father thought that Windex could cure all ills and that the Greeks’ were responsible for all of western civilization’s great accomplishments. That was hilarious. I still love that movie. As I approach 27 years as a trial lawyer…

If you practice law in New York, you better know finance. Texas, it’s oil law. Hollywood, the savvy lawyers get into entertainment law. If it’s Arizona you better know real estate. By hook or crook, it always shows up in Arizona. That’s because we are a fast growing State. In my early years, I represented…

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…