Lawsuits in Arizona
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 a lot and borrowed $440,000 from M&I Bank to build a single-family home on the property for their own use. Months into the construction they abandoned the property after experiencing construction delays and defaulted on the note. M&I Bank repossessed the property with a non-judicial foreclosure and sought to recover the deficiency.
M&I Bank argued that the debtors were not entitled to protection because the home was never constructed; therefore, the property was not “utilized” for a single-family home. In Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Association of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp., 167 Ariz. 122, 129, 804 P.2d 1310, 1317 (1991), a commercial homebuilder defaulted on a loan during the construction of homes for resale. The homes had not been fully completed as of the date of the default. The Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute did not protect the debtor from a deficiency judgment because the property was not “utilized as a dwelling when it is unfinished, has never been lived in, and is being held for sale to its first occupant by the owner who has no intent to ever occupy the property.” The Appellate Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision, holding that when raw land is purchased by the debtor with the intent to personally occupy the property, the anti-deficiency statute applies even if the home is not constructed and the property is not occupied. However, where the raw land is purchased by the debtor with the intent to never personally occupy the land the anti-deficiency statute does not apply. The Court held that this framework serves the primary purpose of the anti-deficiency statute which is to protect homeowners from deficiency judgments. The Court further held that any requirement that a person has to physically inhabit the dwelling creates an artificial line that creates absurd results. For example, the Court noted that an individual that lived in a home for one day would be entitled to protection, but an individual that has not moved into a newly completed home would not be entitled to protection.
At the Law Firm of William A. Miller we handle this type of claim against the bank. Call us at 602-319-6899 or visit us at 8170 North 86th Place Scottsdale, Arizona 85258.
Mortgage 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 or Freddie Mac, you’re not eligible for the mortgage relief encompassed by the deal.
Since Fannie and Freddie control well more than half of all outstanding mortgages, this shortcoming looks to be what engineers would call “non-trivial.” But it is nothing like this. It means ½ of the pool is now not eligible for the program. But the goal in restructurings is to prevent homeowners from re-defaulting after a modification, and the record shows that forgiveness is much better than any other option in achieving that. This program will NOT help as designed.
We focus on fraud, securities, business disputes and commercial loan workouts at the law firm of William A. Miller in Scottsdale Arizona. Call Bill with questions at 602-319-6899
William A. Miller, PLLC 8170 North 86th Place, Suite 208 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Those who Teach…
Posted on September 19, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateThe bible says those who teach are held to a higher standard & federal prosecutors acknowledged that they made some “honest mistakes” in a high-profile Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case, but disputed in a brief
filed on Sept. 5 that those oversights rose to the level of misconduct.
The government’s filing addressed concerns voiced by U.S. District Judge
Howard Matz in Los Angeles that the government’s “astonishing” and
“troublesome” mishandling of the case might warrant dismissing the indictment
against two former executives of Lindsey Manufacturing Co. who were convicted on
FCPA charges. Defense lawyers moved to dismiss the charges based on prosecutorial
misconduct one day before a May 10 jury verdict went against their clients.
I think the Judge need grant this Motion. If our prosecutors get by with this behavior then what is next? After all those who teach…
Arizona Trial & Business Law
William A. Miller, Esq.
William A. Miller, PLLC
8170 North 86th Place, Suite 208
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
What 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 MoreMore Investors Sue Greenberg Traurig and Mayer Hoffman
Posted on June 3, 2010 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateFollowing on the heels of the federal class-action lawsuit filed against two national law firms and national accounting firms last week in Phoenix, Greenberg Traurig and Mayer Hoffman McCann and its affiliates find themselves on the wrong end of another investor lawsuit to recover some $52.3 million that the investors claim the lawyers and auditors…
Read MoreA Ship without a Sail
Posted on June 2, 2009 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateI just finished lunch with one of the smartest and richest guys in Paradise Valley, Arizona. He knows I am writing this post as he teased me about being silent the last few weeks. I told him I was WORKING on legal briefs and I did not have time to blog about the Arizona legal…
Read MorePlaying Hard Ball in S.F.
Posted on December 25, 2008 in Arizona Loan WorkoutA San Francisco landlord for defunct white shirt law firm Heller Ehrman won a key court ruling earlier this month that means bankruptcy is now possible. What this means is the landlord accelerated all future rent due and has tied the Heller Ehrman partner hands from a midnight move or fire sale of its assets….
Read More