Real Estate Lawsuit or Litigation in Phoenix Arizona

Securities Fraud + Class Action = Alive and well.

Posted on July 6, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

The Supreme Court made it harder for investors to band together to pursue class action claims that they were misled when they bought or sold securities. But the justices did not accept a broader challenge, one that could have put an end to most class actions for securities fraud. So, as we say, class actions regarding securities claims are still alive.
The Wall Street bunch expressed tempered enthusiasm for the decision, calling it a small step.
“While today’s decision inches toward bringing securities law back in line with the ordinary rules for proving fraud cases, much more can and should be done,” said Lily Claffee, general counsel of the United States Chamber of Commerce.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in a unanimous decision that split 6 to 3 on its rationales, said that defendants facing class actions might try to show at an early stage that their statements did not affect their securities’ market price.
The decision, in a case involving the oil services company Halliburton, will cut back on suits that can involve enormous sums. Settlements involving companies and investors over the last decade have totaled about $62 billion, with about $10.5 billion of that amount going to plaintiffs’ lawyers, according to a report from NERA, an economic consulting firm.
While we do not pursue class actions at the Law Firm of William A. Miller, we know plenty of big time firms that do, so if you think you have a securities’ case, call Bill Miller at 602.319.6899. We handle individual claims before the Federal District Court, Maricopa County Superior Court, FINRA and the AAA.

…be careful what you ask for

Posted on May 13, 2014 in Arizona Law Regarding Business Disputes

As they say, you need to be careful what you ask for…In the summer 2006, Clint Underhill purchased 64 shares in Underhill Holding Company, Inc. (HC) from David Caruthers and Caruther’s wife for $6,000.  Several months later, the Caruthers wrote to Clinton and accused him of knowingly misrepresenting HC’s value.  The Caruthers demanded the return of their stock certificates. Next year, Caruthers filed a suit against Clinton suing w/ the kitchen sink game plan— common law fraud, consumer fraud, securities fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. In late2008, the Caruthers’ lawyer sent a letter to Clinton tendering the complete rescission of the stock transactions.

On the last day of trial, the Caruthers’ counsel informed the court that the Caruthers would elect the remedy of rescission.  Clinton moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the Caruthers had not demanded rescission before.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Caruthers on and $15,000 in punitive damages.  The parties papers on whether the Caruthers were entitled to rescission.  Reversing its earlier ruling, the court entered an order denying rescission, based on its conclusion that the Caruthers had unreasonably delayed in rescinding and had waived their right to rescission by ratifying the stock purchase transaction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred in applying the election-of-remedies doctrine, but that the Caruthers invited the error.  In Arizona, the election of remedies doctrine provides that a party who has been fraudulently induced to enter into a contract must choose to either disavow the contract and seek a return to the status quo ante, or affirm the contract and sue for damages for breach.  If, however, alternative theories of recovery are factually consistent, an inconsistency does not arise until one of the remedies is satisfied and consistent remedies may be pursued concurrently even to final adjudication.  The Court of Appeals concluded that an election of remedies was never necessary in this case because the Caruthers did not seek to recover on inconsistent theories of liability.  They did not sue for breach of contract, and their case did not depend on affirmation of the agreement  Because the remedies of damages and rescission were not based on inconsistent theories, the Caruthers should not have been compelled to choose one remedy to the exclusion of the other.  The Court concluded that it could not, however, reverse the judgment on these grounds because the Caruthers invited the error by failing to object to the notion that they were required to choose between remedies.

The Court also affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the Caruthers were not entitled to a jury trial on rescission and that equitable defenses apply to rescission.  By its plain language, A.R.S. § 44-2002(A) does nothing more than authorize a seller to seek rescission.  Nothing in the statute suggests that the seller’s choice transforms rescission from an equitable remedy to a non-discretionary one.  The Court nevertheless concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by denying rescission based on its finding of prejudice.  Although the court looked to appropriate factors, it wrongly defined the delay period and misconstrued the deleterious result caused by the delay as a “prejudicial” result.

Feel free to call William A. Miller at 319-6899 to discuss. His office is 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.

Landlord Liability for Tenant Acts

Posted on July 31, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

If a landlord knew or should have known of activities by the tenant that could cause a danger or nuisance, i.e., damage to neighbors, to surrounding property owners, or even to a passerby, then the landlord can be held liable for tenant bad acts. See Klimkowski v. De La Torre, 175 Ariz. 340 (1993).

In the Klimkowski case our court ruled that the landlord knew or should have known of the tenants’ recklessness with regard to gasoline and incendiary devices on the rental property.  Therefore, the landlord was liable for damage caused by an explosion on the rental property. As to ‘should have known’, real estate investors who own rental property should regularly visit the rental property to assess the condition of the rental property and confirm that the tenants are not committing bad acts.

We have worked with landlords all over Arizona to help them assess and reduce potential liability. Please call us at 602-319-6899 to discuss any real estate questions.

No Statute of Limitation on Quiet Title!

Posted on June 12, 2013 in Az Business Law

On May 28, 2013, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside that there is no statute of limitations for a quiet title lawsuit. 1 CA-CV 12-0258. In short, if an owner of real property gives permission to a neighboring owner to drive over their property for ten or twenty years, the…

Read More

Lerner v. DMD Realty. LLC

Posted on June 10, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

In the Lerner case, 648 Ariz. Adv. Rep 35 (CA 1, 11/27/12) the Arizona Court of Appeals continued to uphold the stigmatized property statute. The statute gives non  disclosure bogie’s. It limits the things that MUST be disclosed and cuts off liability for other non disclosures that common sense would suggest need be disclosed. ie….

Read More

Your Word is Your Bond

Posted on March 21, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

It’s hard to figure out why lawyers will not quote what the cost of a suit will be. While, variables do exist, your lawyer should know what these variables might be. That can be factored in. Well, the legal marketplace is changing, and companies are now demanding value-based engagements with their outside firms that create…

Read More

The End of National Century

Posted on March 15, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Just weeks before a scheduled trial, Credit Suisse has reached a $400 million settlement in litigation over the demise of National Century Financial Enterprises. The settlement resolves claims that bondholders were defrauded to the tune of $2 billion when National Century collapsed amid a health-care financing scandal in 2002 — and reportedly brings the bondholders’…

Read More

How to Sue for Home Defects

Posted on March 6, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

At 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….

Read More

Investor Loss? Another Deep Pocket to Sue

Posted on January 7, 2013 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real Estate

Back 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…

Read More

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….

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