A REAL ESTATE AGENT MAY NOT SUE TO ENFORCE AN AGREEMENT FOR A REAL ESTATE SALES COMMISSION UNLESS “ALL PARTIES” HAVE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS REQUIRES SIGNATURES ONLY FROM “THE PARTIES TO BE CHARGED.”
A.R.S. § 32-2151.02(A) requires “real estate
employment agreements” to “[b]e signed by all parties to the agreement.” Although the statute of frauds only requires
the signature of the “parties to be charged,” that is not enough under §
32-2151.02(A). However, a “thank you”
email might, in certain circumstances, be able to qualify as an electronic
signature under the Arizona Electronic Transactions Act, A.R.S. §§ 44-7001 to
-7052. In Arizona, an electronic
signature “satisfies any law that requires a signature.” A.R.S. § 44-7007(D). Whether something in an email satisfies the
statute may be a question of fact. Young v. Rose, 1 CA-CV 10-0786, 9/25/12.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Money Hidden by a Decedent in the Decedent’s Home Is Mislaid Property That Belongs to the Decedent’s Estate and Not to the Subsequent Purchasers of the Home.
Under Arizona law, property is “mislaid” if the owner intentionally places it in a certain place and later forgets about it. A finder of mislaid property must turn the property over to the premises owner, who has the duty to safeguard the property for the true owner. Absent evidence of abandonment, valuables hidden by a decedent in the decedent’s home are mislaid property belonging to the decedent’s estate, not subsequent purchasers of the home where the property was hidden. Grande v. Jennings, 1 CA-CV 11-0148, 5/31/12.
Monday, December 3, 2012
A Claim Accrues Under an Installment Contract with an Optional Acceleration Clause When the Creditor Takes an Affirmative Action to Make Clear to the Debtor That It Has Exercised the Acceleration Option.
When a creditor has a contractual right to accelerate a debt without notice, it must take “some affirmative act to make clear to the debtor it has accelerated the obligation.” A variety of actions, including repossession of property, can be sufficient to demonstrate that the creditor has exercised its option to accelerate the payments. An internal write off is not, however, such an affirmative act but rather merely an internal accounting procedure. Baseline Financial Services v. Madison, 1 CA-CV 11-0557, 6/5/12.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Seller Is Liable Under Arizona Consumer Fraud Act for Transmitting Other’s Misrepresentation to Buyer Despite Seller’s Ignorance That Representation Was False
Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act prohibits, inter alia, the use of any misrepresentation in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise. A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). An automobile dealer who voluntarily forwards a misleading email from the manufacturer containing misrepresentations may be liable under the Act. That the dealer is merely the “messenger” and not the original source of the misrepresentation is not a defense. Powers v. Guaranty RV, Inc., 1 CA-CV 11-0062, 6/12/12.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
A DEFICIENCY ACTION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN A PROMISSORY NOTE
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently ruled that in Arizona the potential recovery in a deficiency action arises from the promissory note and not from the non-judicial foreclosure. A deficiency action therefore is subject to an arbitration clause in a promissory note. Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Schwartz, 1 CA-CV 10-0772, 6/26/12.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act Requires Some Showing Of Intent
Monday, October 1, 2012
Diminution Of Value Can Be Claimed For Damage To Property