Scottsdale Personal Injury Lawyer - Business Disputes

Mandatory Closing Provisions Strictly Enforced in Real Estate Purchase Contracts

Geoff Trachtenberg — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:41:19 GMT

That hissing sound you hear is not just air coming out of the real estate bubble, it's the folks at Mining Investment Group, LLC ("MIG") who today learned the importance of a mandatory closing date where a contract specifies that "time is of the essence." The case, Mining Investment Group, LLC v. Roberts, shows just how strictly the courts will interpret real estate purchase contracts - indeed, what a difference a (business) day makes - where the contract includes a specific date for closing, a term that is currently quite common in many real estate purchase contracts.

The short story: MIG contracted with Roberts to buy some land for $126,000. MIG deposited $10,000 in earnest money into escrow, promised another $30,000 at closing and a note for the rest. The closing date was ultimately set on a Friday and MIG failed to deposit the $30,000 into escrow. Roberts then faxed the escrow company a cancellation after the close of business on the date of the closing, withdrawing the property from escrow. The next business day, however, MIG wired the $30,000 to the escrow company (the escrow company was closed over the weekend). Roberts refused to close and MIG sued Roberts for specific performance. Roberts countersued MIG for filing a groundless lis pendens against the property.

The trial court granted Roberts' motion for summary judgment that, in light of the "time of the essence" clause in the contract, the failure to close on the specific date was a material breach. The trail court enforced the liquidated damages clause of the contract, awarding the $10,000 earnest money to the Roberts, awarded attorneys' fees to Roberts pursuant to the contract and ordered the lis pendens to be released (although it did not find it was groundless). Both parties appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on all counts.

MIG relied upon one the Supreme Court's decision in Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc., 163 Ariz. 438, 788 P.2d 1189 (1990), to support its argument that, notwithstanding the "time is of the essence" term of the contract, there must be a material breach to work a forfeiture of an equitable property interest, and that the "materiality" of a breach was a question of fact. Loehmann's involved a tenant in a commercial lease who was subject to a forcible detainer action after it was three days late paying an assessment for common areas. In Loehmann's the Supreme Court held that a "time of the essence" clause was not dispositive in determining the materiality of a breach, that "[t]he mere incantation that 'time is of the essence' works no magic to transform trivial untimeliness into a material breach; rather, the same factors . . . in determining general materiality apply to evaluating the effect of a particular 'time of the essence' provision."

At first blush, Loehmann's seems to support MIG, but the Court of Appeals saw it differently. The Court distinguished an "executory contract for the purchase of real estate" from leasehold contracts. The Court found an "equitable interest" in land under a purchase contract was sui generis to a "possessory interest" in land under a leasehold, with the possessory interest apparently enjoying more protection from "inequitable forfeiture" as described in Loehmann's. The Court was also troubled by having to "ignore the express terms that the parties contracted for and essentially rewrite the contract." Not surprisingly then, the Court affirmed the trial court's award of the $10,000 earnest money and attorneys' fees, also pursuant to the express terms of the contract. The Court also agreed with the trial Court's determination that the lis pendens was not groundless.

This case is a big deal, and I have to wonder whether it will withstand further review. There are many reasons why real estate deals do not close on a specific dates, which are usually agreed to weeks or months in advance. Bank delays in wiring money, lender or broker delays of all kinds and simple press of business sometimes makes a precise closing impossible. Further, in my view, it is grossly unfair and bizarre to enforce the "time is of the essence" provision in one type of real estate contract (a lease) but not in others (a purchase) under some legal fiction that one is possessory and the other is "merely equitable."

For now, at least, if you are buying property in Arizona, you better make sure you build in sufficient room for delaying closing because the slightest delay may result in a substantial forfeiture.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Geoff Trachtenberg

Arizona Supreme Court Holds Professional Negligence Against Insurance Agent is Assignable

Geoff Trachtenberg — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:16:33 GMT

Surprising result in Webb v. Gittlen, a new opinion from the Arizona Supreme Court which holds that a professional negligence claim against an insurance agent is assignable. Although a long overdue holding, it highlights the badly misunderstood law concerning assignments, including the scope and justification of anti-assignment law (see my earlier article on Assignments vs. Liens in the Personal Injury Context).

To be sure, how many modern opinions rely upon 400-year old case law from "Lord Coke"? This one does.

The opinion is a actually a good read in that the Supreme Court takes us through centuries of anti-assignment history and jurisprudence, neatly summarizing Arizona law on this issue as follows:

The current principles under Arizona law for determining if an unliquidated claim may be assigned can be summarized as follows: (1) claims generally are assignable except those involving personal injury; (2) the legislature may specify whether particular claims are assignable; and (3) absent legislative direction, public policy considerations should guide courts in determining whether to depart from the general rule.

The Court then turned to the case at issue and, without specifically saying so, seemed to accept that a claim against an insurance agent -- relating to a wrongful death claim -- does not "involve a personal injury." While I think this is clearly correct, it is surprising how often the issue gets ignored or taken for granted -- namely, what constitutes an unlawful assignment of a personal injury claim?

For example, is a medical lien an unlawful assignment of a personal injury claims? Why not? Since most personal injury attorneys encounter these every day, wouldn't it make sense to know whether they are valid and why? Well, this opinion may shed some light on the issue where Court stated as follows:

Arizona case law generally allows the assignment of unliquidated legal claims except those involving personal injury. This distinction reflects the evolution of the common law, which once held that "choses in action" could not be assigned, except to the crown. Welch v. Mandeville, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 233, 237 n.a (1816). A legal claim is one type of "chose in action," but the concept also encompasses "debts of all kinds" and "rights to recover ownership or possession of real or personal property."

While not the focus of the opinion, the Court's discussion of the affirmative assignably of "legal claims" and "debts of all kinds" is important. For instance, even though a medical lien creates an interest in a person's bodily injury recovery, maybe it is a valid "legal claim" since it covers a "debt." But if you think this is a slam-dunk, consider what the same Court said in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Druke, 118 Ariz. 301, 576 P.2d 489 (1978):

Whatever the form, whatever the label, whatever the theory, the result is the same. The [documents] create an interest in any recovery against a third party for bodily injury. Such an arrangement, if made or contracted for prior to settlement or judgment, is the legal equivalent of an assignment and therefore unenforceable.

Id. at 304, 576 P.2d at 492; Lo Piano v. Hunter, 173 Ariz. 172, 175-76, 840 P.2d 1037, 1040-43 (App. 1992) (holding that reimbursement provision was an unenforceable assignment of a personal injury claim). So it is still up in the air whether such assignments are valid.

Anyway, the substantive thrust of the Court's holding was to explain the difference between assignments of legal malpractice claims and professional negligence claims against insurance agents. Without holding whether legal malpractice claims were assignable, the Court went on to "assume they are not" and distinguished the attorney-client relationship with the insurance agent-client relationship, essentially saying that the later was of a lesser duty (i.e., generally not a fiduciary, which was a bit of a surprise to me) and drawing on other differences (without saying why the differences made a difference by the way). The Court just concluded that the relationship with an insurance agent was not "uniquely personal" to justify making claims against an insurance agent non-assignable.

Next, the Court addressed public policy arguments. Surely, the best line in this section is the following refreshing dose of common sense to the argument that allowing such assignments would "commercialize" the insurer-client relationship: "Although the agent-client relationship has personal dimensions, it arises from a commercial transaction - the purchase of insurance. It is therefore odd to suggest that it should not be commercialized." This, of course, begs the question -- isn't the relationship between an attorney and client commercial? That is, it involves the commercial exchange of money for services, so why should it get any different treatment?

It is probably too much to hope for, namely -- the complete abolition of anti-assignment law -- and even though it sometimes helps our clients in the lien context, it has always seemed unnecessarily paternalistic and outdated to me, especially the nonsense about "trafficking in personal injury claims." Still, it was nice to see the Court tip its hat, in footnote 3, to commentators "who advocate allowing assignment of all tort claims."

In fact, the Court alluded to the inconsistent and strange genesis of the non-assignablity issue, noting that "[a]s courts became more accessible and litigation a more accepted means for resolving disputes, the prohibition on assignment gradually became the exception rather than the rule." The Court explained that the rationale behind the "exception" of prohibiting assignment of personal injury claims was basically tied to the idea that the claims were "personal" and did not survive death, therefore, they could not be assigned during the person's lifetime. But the Court observed:

This "survivability" test did not itself survive in Arizona after 1955, when the legislature enacted a [now amended] statute providing for the survival of most causes of action, including personal injury claims. Although this statute undermined one rationale for refusing to allow the assignment of personal injury claims, courts did not abolish the rule. Instead, they resurrected the common law public policy rationale - fear of vexatious litigation.

In other words, the reason we still have non-assignment law today is simply a function of judicial activism from 50 years ago. So it's possible that, one day, courts will see it differently -- afterall, who would have thought the Court would permit assignment of a claim against an insurance agent, but not a lawyer?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Geoff Trachtenberg

Peak Oil: A Crude Awakening

Geoff Trachtenberg — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:39:46 GMT

Ask most people, and they'll probably tell you global warming is our greatest global obstacle. Some will even say something like terrorism or illegal immigration. Frankly, I thought I was pretty damn clever spotting the global credit bubble, and believed it to be the greatest global crisis we'd face in our lifetimes (i.e., something on order of five times larger than the S&L crisis). Even if I'm right about that number, I'm far from being right about the significance of the event.

I rented a movie this weekend, A Crude Awakening (2006), from Netflix. You have to see it; it changed my thinking in 90 minutes.

I had previously read about "Peak Oil," but nothing put it together as persuasively as this movie. The magnitude and consequences of a global oil crisis are staggering, imminent and unavoidable.

For anyone who does watch it or who has seen it, I'd really like to know your thoughts on the following: When the world can no longer fulfill our global oil demand (sometime between now and 10 years from now), do we get massive price inflation or deflation of assets and commodities (or will it be different for one versus the other)?

Don't be too quick to answer; it's trickier than you might think. While the law of supply and demand dictates dramatically higher prices (for commodities anyway), global asset and commodity prices during the Great Depression sank almost 50%, and there's reason to believe that long-term effects of a real global oil crisis (unlike the temporary and politically-induced "oil shock" of the 70s) would not necessarily lead to higher prices if it disrupted economic activity for any appreciable amount of time. Simply put, if economic activity slowed or stopped, there'd be massive unemployment, less money and, consequently, less demand for everything (with the exception of things like guns, ammo, food and water, in my opinion).

So, think $100 per barrel is expensive? What if oil cost $1,000 per barrel or $50/gal of gasoline? How much does bread, clothing or heating cost then? Will people be able to afford it? Will they have a job under such conditions? What about American cities, like ours, that are spread out and utterly dependent upon personal transportation? What will happen to economic activity in a place like Phoenix or, more broadly, the "American way of life"?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Geoff Trachtenberg

Mortgage Rate Freeze: A Flim-Flam Scheme to Recharacterize Billions of Fraudulent Mortgages and Trick Investors

Geoff Trachtenberg — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:56:20 GMT

Imagine a loan of $100,000 based upon (1) a borrower's true income / ability to repay and (2) the true value of the real estate collateral. Now imagine a loan of $100,000 based upon (1) fictional income figures and (2) fictional valuation of real estate collateral. Which type of loan do you think predominated in the United States for the last five to ten years?

Now imagine these "liar loans" were bundled into securities with a few good loans thrown on top to make them smell nice. A little like giving someone a stack of bills with $100 bills at the top and monopoly money underneath. Then imagine those bundled securities are sold to various pension funds and foreign investors. Sound familiar?

Add in the fact that you are now the treasury secretary of the United States, formerly with Goldman Sachs, one of the major players in this bundled securitization scheme and you are facing record foreclosures and home price devaluation. What do you do?

Do you worry that those pension funds or foreign investors might sue your banking buddies for selling them a bill of goods? You bet you do. So how to fix the problem?

The answer: freeze mortgage interest rates for five years in a massive national refinancing scheme.

It's a brilliant plan. You appear to be the benevolent bureaucrat, concerned for the "working man" who is going to "lose their home." You even get to claim that you are doing a service to all those investors in mortgage-backed securities because, after all, they are better off taking a little less interest than dealing with the expense of foreclosure, right?

But not so fast. Did you catch the flim-flam? Did you spot it?

You see, in five years, those same people will own real estate that, let's face it, is going to be worth the same or, most likely, less money at that time than it is today. And please spare me the National Association of Realtor's rosy projections on home valuations. Those cheerleading saps have never been right about predicting home values and live in a perpetual state of euphoric denial. Moreover, even if unemployment stays as low as it is and wage growth continues in a Goldilocks economy, once the rates unfreeze, those people will be facing the very same issues. And what if we get that recession that everyone's talking about?

Do you see it now? Well here it is: after the five year rate freeze, those bankers who sold the fraudulent junk debt will have a great defense to any claim that the junk was fraud. Namely, they'll be past most statutes of limitation and be able to turn back to the suckers - I mean investors - who bought those securities and say the investors "knew all along," and certainly knew as of the rate freeze, about the true income and valuation status underlying the various mortgages in the packaged securities.

Such as plan is equally ingenious and corrupt, but don't be fooled by the flim-flam man. Although this plan is going to save Wall Street, get ready for one hell of a ride on Main Street, because it is you, me and our children that are ultimately going to pay the heavy, heavy price in the years to come.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Geoff Trachtenberg

Failure to Plead Sufficient Facts - The New Legal Malpractice?

Geoff Trachtenberg — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:48:53 GMT

There's a new case out this week from Division Two, Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance, which deals with the reasonable expectations doctrine in the UIM setting. The case is not particularly fascinating from a substantive perspective, but it raises questions about potential legal malpractice exposure.

In sum, Cullen filed a UIM claim based upon the fact that his family was given the right to privately use a business vehicle. The vehicle was owned by the business, Sierrita Mining and Ranch Company, and had UIM coverage with Auto Owners. The named insured was the business, and there were no additional insureds.

Cullen was injured while riding in another vehicle and filed a UIM claim with Auto Owners. The insurer denied his UIM claim, he then filed suit and the trial court dismissed the action.

First, the Court of Appeals expressly adopted the Supreme Court's holding in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the case that overruled the familiar Conley v. Gibson standard for dismissal.

This is a significant move and one wonders how the Arizona Court of Appeals, which is bound to follow the Arizona Supreme Court on such matters, saw fit to disregard the Arizona Supreme Court and unilaterally adopt the United States Supreme Court's Twombly holding. In any event, doubt no further, the "notice pleading" landscape has changed in Arizona as follows:

"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) . . . motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Instead, the complaint's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level."

The Court stated "when a complaint fails to recite at least the basic facts supporting a claim for relief, we cannot see how a defendant would have fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim." The Court then, turning its attention back to Cullen's case, stated it was limiting its review to the facts alleged in the complaint and the terms of the insurance contract.

Second, the Court went on to state that "[i]t is clear that the UIM provision of the policy Auto Owners issued to Sierrita does not provide Cullen with UIM coverage." This is pretty straight-forward since the only named insured was the business and Cullen was not injured while in the insured vehicle.

Third, the Court addressed the reasonable expectations argument. The Court explained that "[t]he [reasonable expectations] doctrine necessarily applies to the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties, not to the reasonable expectations of a hopeful insured, such as Cullen, who is a stranger to the insurance contract." The Court concluded that "the reasonable expectations doctrine d[oes] not apply to an injured party who 'had nothing to do with the purchase of the policy in question [and] never had an insurable interest or expectancy under the policy.'"

Then the Court gets cheeky. The Court stated that, despite Cullen's status as a "stranger" to the insurance contract, "Cullen's complaint is sufficient if the facts he alleged permit the inference Sierrita had a reasonable expectation Cullen would have portable UIM coverage under the policy it purchased from Auto Owners."

Ho-hum, what could they be thinking? How about this: "In his briefs to this court, Cullen describes several factual scenarios that arguably could prove one of the above situations applies to his claim. His complaint, however, contains none of them. Although Cullen's complaint conclusorily asserts he had a reasonable expectation of coverage, as we have explained, his expectations are not relevant here." So, the Court affirmed the trial court and denied the insurers' request for attorneys' fees.

Message: if you want to avoid being sued, forget notice pleading, you better allege facts, facts, facts to support your legal claims.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Geoff Trachtenberg

Experts Not Allowed to Testify to the Percentage of Fault

Geoff Trachtenberg — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:41:05 GMT

Division One just handed down Webb v. Omni Block, Inc., a clearly written opinion which decisively eliminates an expert's ability to testify as to the "percentage of fault" for any party or non-party.

In Webb, defendant, Omni Block, hired an expert who testified as to the specific percentage of fault (or lack thereof) for various parties and non-parties. Judge Jones allowed this testimony and the jury came back with an allocation that was very close to the allocation suggested by the defense expert. The Court of Appeals quickly dispatched the portion of the appeal challenging the expert's qualification and focused, instead, on the appropriateness of the testimony on the "ultimate issue" pursuant to Rule 704.

Rule 704 states that "[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact." The Court noted that a first-blush reading of Rule 704 "appears to support Omni's argument because it permits opinion testimony [about the percentages of fault] that encompasses an ultimate issue."

However, the Court observed, pursuant to "the comment to Rule 704, opinion testimony on an ultimate issue must still be helpful to the trier of fact and cannot be couched in legal conclusions that simply opine 'how juries should decide cases.'" Quoting McCormick on Evidence, the Court noted:

Undoubtedly some highly opinionated statements by the witness amount to nothing more than an expression of his general belief as to how the case should be decided or the amount of damages which would be just. All courts exclude such extreme, conclusory expressions. There is no necessity for this kind of evidence; its receipt would suggest that the judge and jury may shift responsibility for the decision to the witness. In any event, the opinion is worthless to the trier of fact.

"We therefore hold that [Omni's expert's] opinion apportioning of percentages of fault to the parties and non-parties constituted inadmissible legal conclusions under Rule 704 because he thereby told the jury how to decide the case. Once [Omni's expert] testified to the duties and responsibilities of the parties involved, the distribution of fault among the parties responsible was the jury's responsibility."

It's good to see the Court of Appeals finally adding teeth to the Comment to Rule 704. Many of us have used that Comment extensively to advocate for limitations to the substance for expert testimony, and so now that it was the basis of a published opinion, perhaps we will have greater success in getting judges to address the aggressive invasion of the jury's province by defense experts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Geoff Trachtenberg

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly: The Day "Notice Pleading" Died (Sort Of)

Geoff Trachtenberg — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:20:02 GMT

On May 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ___ (2007), announcing the "retirement" of the long-standing standard for dismissal of complaints articulated in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) - i.e., the standard that complaints should not be dismissed "unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."

Bell Atlantic represents a sea change in "notice pleading" standards. As one law professor recently observed:

The question, though, is what that change will look like. What does Bell Atlantic really mean? Clearly, Conley's "no set of facts" language is dead, at least as to the meaning that was customarily ascribed to it. And, at least for the kinds of costly class action antitrust cases like the one initiated by Twombly, Bell Atlantic erects an additional "plausibility" requirement of fact pleading in its place, what I have called "notice-plus."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Geoff Trachtenberg

Arizona Courts Have General Personal Jurisdiction over Foreign Insurers

Geoff Trachtenberg — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:14:00 GMT

New decision from Division One, Bohreer v. Erie Ins. Exch.. Bohreer holds that an Arizona court has general personal jurisdiction over a foreign insurer which has appointed the Director of Insurance as an agent for service of process and has not withdrawn such qualification or appointment, but has ceased doing business in the state prior to the acts underlying the complaint. The Court held that exercising such jurisdiction did not violate due process.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Geoff Trachtenberg

Court Holds Offer of Judgment Sanctions Include All Reasonable Expert Fees

Geoff Trachtenberg — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:18:40 GMT

Division One handed down Levy v. Alfaro today which holds that Rule 68 sanctions include all reasonable expert witness fees after the offer, not just those fees for testifying at trial. The decision is no surprise to those of us who regulaly try cases, but I suppose it is good to have it "clarified."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Geoff Trachtenberg

Judicial Officers are Subject to the "De Facto Officer" Doctrine and Failure to Object to the Appointment of a Judge Pro Tempore is a Procedural Defect That Can Be Waived

Geoff Trachtenberg — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:49:57 GMT

Division One just handed down Garner v. Schindler, a short and sweet opinion on the nature of judges pro tempore (I am a judge pro tempore, by the way). In sum, the appellant had a probate dispute litigated before a judge pro tempore and, after the case was over, decided to raise (for the first time) hyper-technical defects in the judge's appointment.

The Court of Appeals, awknoweldged that there was a defect in the appointment of the judge pro tempore, but observed that the Supreme Court had previously applied the "de facto officer" doctrine in determining the validity of acts of other public officers whose appointment or election to the office was legally defective. The de facto officer doctrine applies as follows:

one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised . . . . under color of a known election or appointment [that would otherwise be] void by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public.

The Court recognized the sound policy behind the doctrie:

The de facto officer doctrine was developed to protect the public from the chaos and uncertainty that would ensue if actions taken by individuals apparently occupying government offices could later be invalidated by exposing defects in the officials' titles. The doctrine has generally been applied to individuals who are in possession of an office, are performing the duties of the office, and who maintain an appearance of right to the office.

The Court held that "[w]e do not perceive any reason why the doctrine of de facto officers . . . should not be extended to judges -- including judges pro tempore -- who occupy office under color of a known appointment that suffers from a procedural defect or irregularity that is unknown to the public." Indeed, "it makes little sense to waste 'valuable judicial and private resources' by '[r]equiring relitigation of matters decided by a competent, unbiased judge.'" "This is particularly so when, as here, the 'procedural defects in a judge's qualifications do not affect the fairness of the proceedings.'" Accordingly, the Court held that the de facto officer doctrine is applicable to judicial officers.

The Court then turned to whether the defect was "procedural" or "jurisdictional." The significance being that the former is subject to waiver, unlike the latter. The Court held that "the defect in the appointment process was a procedural error that [was] waived by not raising [it] before the probate hearing commenced."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Geoff Trachtenberg