Real Estate Lawsuit or Litigation in Phoenix Arizona

Arizona Law- Sometimes Grace

Posted on January 19, 2016 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Hiatt_v._Shah

In 2010 upset Arizona investors sued a video developer in Maricopa County Court. There ended up being three separate cases. The Judge appointed a receiver to handle this. Later, in a settlement agreement the receiver issued Receivership Certificates to Hiatt and Shah granting them powerful purchase rights on receivership assets. The developer was unable to complete its game and the receiver decided to liquidate. The court set a claims bar date. Hiatt failed to submit a claim until several weeks after the bar date. The receiver wanted to allow Hiatt’s untimely claim because it was a receivership debt and the receiver had actual notice of it. Shah objected but the court approved the distribution plan, which included Hiatt. Shah, pretty upset then appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that receivership courts have broad discretion accept claims made after a bar date. A review of cases from other jurisdictions supports the holding that courts can exercise equitable discretion over late-filed claims. The Arizona Court of Appeals summarized: Hiatt, in good faith, did not believe a claim was necessary; the receiver and other parties were already aware of the claim; and the claim delay was relatively short and inconsequential. The Court of Appeals declined to address whether excusable neglect was the standard for allowing untimely claims because Shah waived that issue by failing to raise it below. Just watch your key Court dates. If you miss one, there are sometimes remedies. Feel free to call Bill Miller at 602-319-6899 to discuss.

Arbitration is Changing the Game

Posted on November 2, 2015 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

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. Pierce showed up one day for a hearing, she said she noticed Mr. Kalogredis having coffee with the head of the medical group she was suing. Wow!
During the proceedings the practice hid evidence. It destroyed audio tapes. Dr. Pierce thought things could not get any worse until a fellow doctor reversed key testimony she had given in Dr. Pierce’s favor. The reason: Male colleagues had “clarified” her memory. Wow x 2.
When Mr. Kalogredis ruled against Dr. Pierce, his decision contained passages pulled, verbatim, from legal briefs submitted by lawyers for the medical practice. Wow x 3.
“It took away my faith in a fair and honorable legal system,” said Dr. Pierce, who is still paying off $200,000 in legal costs seven years later. If the case had been heard in Maricopa County Civil Court, Dr. Pierce would have been able to appeal, raising questions about testimony, destruction of evidence and conflicts of interest. But arbitration often bears no resemblance to court. You seldom can appeal.
So, if you are forced to arbitrate make sure you hire an experienced lawyer to at least hire an honest arbitrator. An experienced lawyer can then present your case in the best possible light. Call Bill Miller from Scottsdale, Arizona at 602-319-6899 to discuss. Our address is 8170 North 86th Place, Suite 208 Scottsdale, AZ 85258. While, the game may change, the deck need not be stacked against you.

Bill Collector Gone Bad

Posted on July 29, 2015 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Araceli King, a claims specialist from Texas, isn’t a man named Luiz.
The distinction is clear. Yet, cable bill collectors, who were under the mistaken impression that she was another person and wouldn’t stop calling her about a late payment.
Even after she got on the phone with a representative and explained to them that they were robocalling the wrong person, the company kept calling: another 150 times over a 10-month period, still leaving messages addressed to “Luiz.” This happens in Arizona frequently.
A federal judge awarded her $230,000 in damages, saying he hoped the judgment would encourage companies to be more careful about who they’re robo-calling.
Ms. King sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a 24-year-old law that requires telemarketers to maintain company-specific do-not-call lists and imposes restrictions on unsolicited robocalls to mobile phones.
We are happy to look at your case if it involves this type of harassment. If we cannot handle it, we will endeavor to send you to a lawyer who does. Give Attorney Bill Miller a call at 602-319-6899. 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.

Internet Law and Yelp vs. the Better Business Bureau

Posted on May 18, 2015 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

We have a massive case against the Better Business Bureau pending on behalf of a contractor who feels the BBB is “pay for play’. The case can be found in Maricopa County Superior Court at CV 2013-007803. Our case will be set for trial soon. Yet, Virginia’s highest court ruled on Thursday that Yelp doesn’t…

Read More

The Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007

Posted on January 14, 2015 in Arizona Law Regarding Business Disputes

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…

Read More

Contractor v. Employee

Posted on October 3, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

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…

Read More

The Fox (Snake) Watched the Hen house

Posted on August 19, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

A lawyer (snake) has been sentenced to two years in prison for his role in taking a disabled client of money she was entitled to receive from a $500,000 insurance settlement. He should have received ten years! It’s like the fable of old where the Fox watched the hen house. A sorry joke indeed. Ed…

Read More

9th Circuit “Stern” when it comes to Fraudulent Conveyance

Posted on August 4, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business Disputes

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Stern v. Marshall (all cites omitted) federal courts have issued differing opinions regarding the range of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to enter final judgments in adversary proceedings. In Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, looking at Stern, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a bankruptcy court…

Read More

Crappy neighbors crappy home life

Posted on July 21, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

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…

Read More

Builder be Aware

Posted on July 11, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Home Builder be Aware! On April 22nd, 2014, HB 2018 was signed into law by Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer. The bill will amend two key anti-deficiency statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-729 and 33-814, the former relating to judicial foreclosures and the latter to non-judicial foreclosures. Borrowers have relied upon both of these statutes in order to…

Read More
© Copyright 2008 William A. Miller, Esq., All Rights Reserved