tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65061307425083666192024-02-08T11:24:39.591-08:00Legal News & NotesRobert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-51575829576974257272013-01-22T08:31:00.000-08:002013-01-22T08:31:14.101-08:00<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><strong>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.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><strong><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><strong><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></strong></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">A.R.S. § 32-2151.02(A) requires “real estate
employment agreements” to “[b]e signed by all parties to the agreement.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the statute of frauds only requires
the signature of the “parties to be charged,” that is not enough under §
32-2151.02(A).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Arizona, an electronic
signature “satisfies any law that requires a signature.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A.R.S. § 44-7007(D).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whether something in an email satisfies the
statute may be a question of fact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Young v. Rose</i>, 1 CA-CV 10-0786, 9/25/12.</span>Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-61651728673955383702012-12-17T08:26:00.001-08:002012-12-17T08:26:10.045-08:00<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;">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.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Under Arizona law, property is “mislaid” if the owner
intentionally places it in a certain place and later forgets about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Grande v. Jennings</i>, 1 CA-CV 11-0148,
5/31/12.</span></span></span></div>
Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-82483263838540605582012-12-03T08:54:00.002-08:002012-12-03T08:54:50.142-08:00
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;">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.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<o:p> </o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">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.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A variety of actions, including repossession of property, can be
sufficient to demonstrate that the creditor has exercised its option to
accelerate the payments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An internal
write off is not, however, such an affirmative act but rather merely an internal
accounting procedure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Baseline Financial Services v. Madison</i>,
1 CA-CV 11-0557, 6/5/12.</span>Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-32406381269370275982012-11-05T07:55:00.005-08:002012-11-05T07:55:59.602-08:00<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Seller Is Liable Under Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act for Transmitting Other’s Misrepresentation to Buyer Despite Seller’s
Ignorance That Representation Was False<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act prohibits, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inter alia</i>, the use of any
misrepresentation in connection with the sale or advertisement of
merchandise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A.R.S. § 44-1522(A).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An automobile dealer who voluntarily forwards
a misleading email from the manufacturer containing misrepresentations may be
liable under the Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That the dealer is
merely the “messenger” and not the original source of the misrepresentation is
not a defense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Powers v. Guaranty RV, Inc.</i>, 1 CA-CV 11-0062, 6/12/12.</span></span></span></div>
Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-43932250116264040442012-10-23T10:35:00.001-07:002012-10-23T10:35:11.135-07:00<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">A DEFICIENCY ACTION
IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN A PROMISSORY NOTE <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A deficiency action therefore is subject to
an arbitration clause in a promissory note.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Schwartz</i>,
1 CA-CV 10-0772, 6/26/12.<o:p></o:p></div>
Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-4427982299889678022012-10-15T10:38:00.002-07:002012-10-15T10:38:11.621-07:00
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-transform: uppercase;">Arizona’s
Consumer Fraud Act Requires Some Showing Of Intent </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">In a recent case, the State of Arizona sued AutoZone
alleging that AutoZone had violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (the “CFA”)
by mispricing -- offering for sale goods that displayed a price different than
the price scanned at the register -- and by non-pricing -- offering for sale
goods not priced individually or at the point of display.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>AutoZone argued that the CFA required an
intent element and that its mispricing and non-pricing were unintentional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The State argued that the CFA imposes strict
liability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The trial court entered
summary judgment in favor of AutoZone and the State appealed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the State’s
strict liability argument and found that the CFA requires a form of intent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because the State presented evidence that
AutoZone had offered mispriced and non-priced goods for sale, the burden then
shifted to AutoZone to rebut the State’s prima facie showing that it had acted
with the requisite intent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court
found, based on the record before it, that AutoZone was not entitled to summary
judgment and remanded the matter back for further proceedings. </span>Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-9121474982232368172012-10-01T10:10:00.000-07:002012-10-01T10:10:29.731-07:00
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-transform: uppercase;">Diminution
Of Value Can Be Claimed For Damage To Property </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">The Arizona Court of Appeals recently concluded that <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:state> law did not
require the sale or transfer of a damaged vehicle in order to establish a claim
for diminution of value.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:state> law holds,
therefore, that as long as a plaintiff is able to prove loss of value though
competent means, such as an expert appraisal of the pre-loss and post-repair
value, a diminished value claim can proceed even if the plaintiff does not
suffer any actual loss.</span>Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-2634388846943087472012-09-24T09:36:00.003-07:002012-09-24T09:36:39.178-07:00
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-transform: uppercase;">Comparative
Fault Is Not Applicable To Breach Of Contract Claims </span><o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
The Arizona Court of Appeals
recently held that comparative fault principles are not applicable to breach of
contract claims and that the trial court erred in allocating fault on
plaintiff’s damages resulting from the breach of contract claim.</div>
Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-58794320519541918502012-09-21T12:58:00.001-07:002012-09-21T12:58:32.088-07:00<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-transform: uppercase;">Borrowers
Granted Greater Protection</span></div>
<o:p> </o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">The Arizona Court of Appeals has recently issued three
opinions interpreting <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:state>’s
anti-deficiency statutes to afford debtors greater protection. In
December 2011, the Court held that <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:state>’s
anti-deficiency statute applies to debtors that purchase an undeveloped lot
intending to occupy the lot upon building a house even if they do not actually
build and occupy the house. In a separate opinion, the Court held that
even if a borrower refinances a purchase money mortgage, the refinancing does
not destroy the borrower’s anti-deficiency protection. Most recently, the
Court determined that <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:state>’s
anti-deficiency law prevents a deficiency judgment after foreclosure of a
fractional interest in a vacation accommodation.</span><br />
Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-56566084765446931942011-11-16T08:24:00.003-08:002011-11-16T08:44:16.437-08:00Interest RatesPreviously, interest accrued at 10% per annum unless a different rate was contracted for in writing. Effective July 20, 2011, interest shall accrue at the lesser of 10% or 1% plus the prime rate. Therefore, judgments entered after July 20, 2011 currently bear interest at 4.25% (unless a different rate is agreed upon in writing).<br />
<br />
Keep this revision to the law in mind in preparing and evaluating contracts going forward.Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-89298096955224517682011-11-16T08:24:00.001-08:002011-11-16T08:44:46.173-08:00The "Strategic Default"The Court of Appeals opined on the criminal liability of a homeowner who “strategically defaults” and then sells the bank's collateral.<br />
<br />
Defendant, a real estate broker, bought residential rental properties and then missed payments. In response, the lender foreclosed.<br />
<br />
Before foreclosure, Defendant sold upgraded cabinets -- to the FBI. Defendant was indicted and convicted of defrauding secured creditors, a felony. The jury’s conviction was affirmed.Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6506130742508366619.post-10175911718932307342011-11-16T08:23:00.000-08:002011-11-16T08:45:06.085-08:00ArbritrationArizona recently adopted the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act which provides notable changes.<br />
<br />
Under the new law, an arbitrator may award reasonable attorney fees and expenses if authorized by law or by agreement of the parties. Therefore, attorney fees and expenses may be awarded in most contract actions.<br />
<br />
Also, the new law authorizes an award of punitive damages if evidence produced at the hearing justifies the award under the legal standards otherwise applicable to the claim. A.R.S. § 12-3001 through § 12-3029.Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06039842223470393374noreply@blogger.com0