Real Estate Lawsuit or Litigation in Phoenix 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
Mortgage Forgiveness & Taxes
Posted on December 13, 2011 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateWhen your lender reduces and “forgives” debt, it used to send a Form 1099 for the amount of reduced or forgiven debt. This amount needed to be included as income on your tax return. It is often called phantom income. But, because of new law, there’s a big exception when it comes to mortgage debt secured by your primary residence.
The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 allows you to exclude from your income the debt that’s left over after a foreclosure. The law applies for the calendar years 2007 through 2012.
You can find more information about the act in IRS Publication 4681, Canceled Debts, Foreclosures, Repossessions, and Abandonments, as well as in IRS news release IR-2008-17.
Call long-time Scottsdale, Arizona attorney William A. Miller for more information 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.
Those 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 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 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 MoreNo Ticky, No Laundry
Posted on February 19, 2009 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateAt the law firm of William A. Miller in Phoenix Arizona, we take Arizona-granted licenses as a privilege. You cannot build a house without a contractor’s license. You cannot give legal advice without a law degree and license to practice law. Good luck suing in this State if you do not possess one. If you…
Read MoreDeep Pockets
Posted on February 4, 2009 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateWhen I broke the NCFE (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/01/business/fi-poulsen1) fraud back in 2002, the first thing I did was sue the third-party professionals, the lawyers, accountants and financial firms, who helped NCFE commit their crimes. My favorite law school professor Charles Ayers always said, “go for the deep pockets.” Well, it is now time for the Minnesota accounting…
Read More