Not every lawsuit gives rise to attorney fees if you win. Yet, the Arizona Supreme Court just ruled that the successful party on a claim for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability qualifies for an attorney-fee award under either a contractual fee provision or A.R.S. § 12-341.01. see Sirrah Enterprises v. Wunderlich

Plaintiff/homeowner hired a general contractor to build and finish a basement. Plaintiff sued for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability, and the jury ruled for the Plaintiff. The trial Judge then awarded the attorneys’ fees pursuant to both a contractual fee provision in the General Contractors Construction Agreement and A.R.S. § 12-341.01. The court of appeals affirmed based only on the contractual fee provision.

The Arizona Supreme Court stated that the law imputes the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability into every construction contract, rendering the implied warranty a term of the existing express contract. In short, you may have rights that are not spelled out in your construction contract. The Arizona Supreme Court therefore concluded that a successful party on a claim for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability is eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. It makes sense, because everyone knows that you build a house to live in it, thus it is “implied” that the various rooms should be habitable.

Construction law cases are very fact intensive. At the law firm of William A. Miller we have handled scores of these on both the builder and homeowners behalf. Give us a call at 602-319-6899 if you would like to discuss your case.

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 a bad verdict. The Taxi Company filed a “Motion for New Trial, to Alter or Amend the Judgment, and for Remittitur.” In short, “Your Honor, reduce this jury verdict”. In a minute entry, the court granted a remittitur, reducing the award and ordering the plaintiff to file a notice accepting the remittitur. The passenger rejected the court’s remittitur, and requested the court issue a signed order setting a new trial. The trial court issued a signed minute entry on December 17, 2015, and the passenger appealed on January 14, 2016.

The Court of Appeals confirmed that the plaintiff timely appealed. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 59(i) states that if a party rejects a remittitur, the order granting a new trial is effective from the date the trial court established for the party to provide notice of accepting or rejecting the remittitur. Noting that the deadline set by the trial court was November 25, 2015, the Court further explained that a party cannot appeal an unsigned minute entry granting or denying a motion for new trial. Thus, regardless of Rule 59(i)’s self-executing nature, the appeal was timely because the passenger filed the appeal within 30 days of the signed December 17 minute entry order, the only signed order resolving the motion for a new trial. This is important, because the 30 days in non-negotiable and missing an Appeal date is fatal.

We have a good track record of helping get relief from judgments. Call Bill Miller at 602.319.6899 if you would like to discuss this, RICO claims, fraud, business law or real estate related matters. Our office is located at 8170 N. 86th Place, Suite 208 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 and escrow.

Arbitration is changing the legal game. Be on your guard if you are faced with this. When Dr. Pierce accused her medical group of permitting sexual harassment she was forced to arbitrate in place of the filing a lawsuit. Presiding over the case was not a judge but a corporate lawyer, Mr. Kalogredis. When Dr….

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…

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…