Arizona Real Estate
How to Sue for Home Defects
Posted on March 6, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateAt 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 EstateBack 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 such claims because, most efforts to hold ratings agencies liable for the financial crisis have failed, but on Thursday two institutional investors got the green light to go to trial with claims that they were misled by the top ratings that Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch gave to a $1.1 billion structured investment vehicle called Rhinebridge. District judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan also allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their claims against Morgan Stanley, which structured and marketed Rhinebridge. We were right all along!
At the Arizona Law Firm of William A. Miller we handle this type of claim for investor loss. Call us at 602-319-6899 or visit us at 8170 North 86th Place Scottsdale, Arizona 85258. We have been representing victims of Fraud for 25 years.
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.
Arizona- Title to Property
Posted on December 19, 2012 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate
COMMUNITY PROPERTY: Arizona is a community property state. There is a statutory presumption that all property acquired by husband and wife is community property. Community property is a method of co-ownership for married persons only. Upon death of one of the spouses, the deceased spouse’s interest will pass by either a will or intestate succession. If you are going through a divorce, seek counsel. The Law firm of William A. Miller can refer you to a good family lawyer. For Real Estate or legal questions call Scottsdale Attorney Bill Miller with further questions at 602-319-6899
|
COMMUNITY PROPERTY WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP: The Law Firm of William A. Miller prefers this method of title for married couples. This is version of holding title between married persons that vests the title to real property in the surviving spouse when it is expressly declared in the Deed. This vesting has the tax benefits of holding title as “community property” and the probate avoidance features of “survivorship rights”. Call Scottsdale Attorney Bill Miller with further questions at 602-319-6899
|
JOINT TENANTS WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP: Joint tenancy with right of survivorship is a method of co-ownership that gives title to the real property to the last survivor. Title to real property can be acquired by two or more individuals either married or unmarried. If a married couple acquires title as joint tenants with right of survivorship, they must specifically accept the joint tenancy to avoid the presumption of community property. Call Scottsdale Attorney Bill Miller with further questions at 602-319-6899
|
TENANTS IN COMMON: A method of co-ownership where parties do not have survivorship rights and each owns a specific undivided interest in the entire title. This form of Arizona title leads to many lawsuits. Call Scottsdale Attorney Bill Miller with further questions at 602-319-6899
|
SOLE AND SEPARATE: Real property owned by a spouse before marriage or any acquired after marriage by gift, descent or specific intent. If a married person acquires title as sole and separate property, his/her spouse must execute a Disclaimer Deed. Call Scottsdale Attorney Bill Miller with further questions at 602-319-6899
|
NOTE:
At the Arizona Law Firm of William A. Miller we handle this type of real estate advise and all types of claims for monetary loss. Call us at 602-319-6899 or visit us at 8170 North 86th Place Scottsdale, Arizona 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.
Arizona Anti-deficiency law
Posted on February 27, 2012 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateIn 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 MoreMortgage Foreclosure Settlement
Posted on February 15, 2012 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateSome 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 MoreThose who Teach…
Posted on September 19, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateAz law scottsdale lawyer good trial lawyer
Read MoreWhat is Right is Right
Posted on September 15, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business DisputesA 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 MoreNew Law Regarding Arizona Foreclosure
Posted on February 24, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateUnder 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 MoreSay it. Don’t Spray it!
Posted on February 17, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business DisputesWhen I was a kid, Mr. Winn, my 5th grade teacher would say… “Say it. Don’t spray it!” We all knew what he meant. I just put up about 25 pleadings from the Mortgages Limited fiasco. The Sierra club will go nuts on how many trees we will kill in this case. Note, the lawyers…
Read MoreWho’s on First
Posted on August 20, 2010 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateMortgages bundled into securities were a favorite trick of Wall Street at the height of the big bubble. The securities changed hands frequently, the French bought billions, and the investment banks profiting from mortgage payments were often not the same parties that made the loans. At the heart of this disconnect was the Mortgage Electronic…
Read More