A.R.S. § 12-3103 was enacted by the Arizona Legislature to expressly address the ability of courts and other official bodies to enforce foreign laws that may violate rights guaranteed by federal law or Arizona State law, or that conflict with such laws.
If you're facing the foreclosure of your Arizona home and you want to stop the foreclosure sale, please act now. We meet with far too many people who have a trustee's sale coming up within days (or sometimes hours) and they want to do something to stop the sale. Even if there are legal grounds to challenge the sale, it can be very difficult - and much more expensive - without the benefit of time.
The real lesson from this article is how easy it can be for a lawsuit to get out of hand. Even more than the money spent by both sides, this dispute over roughly $2,000 dragged on for over a decade, likely inflicting untold and uncompensible emotional damage on all involved - not to mention the time lost that could have been spent on more productive endeavors.
Arizona lenders, in some but not all cases, may maintain legal actions to recover a balance left owing after the sale or foreclosure of real estate pursuant to a trust deed, which is addressed in A.R.S. § 33-807. Section 33-814 addresses the ninety-day time limitation for bringing such actions, the procedure for establishing the fair market value to determine the amount of a deficiency judgment, and the obligations of guarantors.
Unfortunately, there is no way to accurately predict how long it will take an individual lender to initiate and complete a Trustee's Sale on any individual home. Technically, as soon as the loan is in default due to the failure to make timely payments the lender may start the process, but usually it takes much longer.
In Arizona, absent some agreement, rule or statute to the contrary, a lender can generally seek a deficiency judgment after foreclosing on a property securing a loan, if the property does not sell for enough money to satisfy the debt in full. Fortunately for most typical Arizona homeowners, the Arizona legislature has adopted anti-deficiency statutes that preclude such recourse in many typical fact scenarios.
The Arizona Revised Statutes, at A.R.S. §§ 12-101 - 12-119.05, address the establishment and function of the Arizona Supreme Court.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, in the case of Amtrust Bank v. Fosset, recently addressed the question of whether a lender who has issued federal tax Form 1099-C indicating a debt was cancelled may thenn sue the borrowers on the obligation. This is an issue of significant importance in Arizona due to the economic conditions that have resulted in a flood of foreclosures, following which many borrowers will receive Form 1099-C.
The anti-deficiency statutes currently on the books, in particular A.R.S. § 33-814(G), apply only to instances where the property is "sold pursuant to the trustee's power of sale," not in the case of a short sale. Although there have been discussions of enacting legislation addressing short sales, and in particular the issue of deficiency liability in a short sale, no such legislation has been enacted.
A.R.S. § 12-3101 applies to Title 12, Chapter 22 of the the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 12-3101-3103), which addresses the application of foreign laws by Arizona courts and other adjudicative bodies.
Arizona Revised Statute Section 23-105 addresses the business operations of the Arizona Industrial Commission, including its office locations and business hours. This statute sets forth the minimum requirements established by the Arizona legislature, but the specific details may be found on the Commission's website.
Statutes of limitation bar legal actions that are not filed in a timely manner. For example, in Arizona A.R.S. § 12-541 mandates that libel or slander claims be filed within one year. Although these time periods will usually be strictly enforced to compel the dismissal of a claim that is not timely filed, there are exceptions that sometimes work to toll the applicable statute of limitations.
Arizona law recognizes several different types of easements, which is a term generally used to address the right to use someone else's real property for some limited purpose. Many easements fall into one of four broad categories that have historically been enforced at common law, include (1) right-of-way easements; (2) easements of support; (3) easements of "light and air"; and (4) easements pertaining to artificial waterways.
One of the most frequent questions we receive regarding the effects of foreclosure is whether your second mortgage lender can sue you to recover damages for the amount they were unable to recover from the foreclosure, if they recovered anything at all, after the first mortgage lender has foreclosed on your home.
Arizona Revised Statute Section 23-108.03 describes some of the powers and duties of the Arizona Industrial Commission.
Arizona Revised Statute Section 23-108 addresses payment of the compensation and expenses of the Industrial Commission's director and employees.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 33-102 sets forth certain requirements survey notes made by a county land surveyor.
Many successful litigants discover that winning a lawsuit doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to get paid what is owed to you. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to collect on a judgment and, in many cases, judgment creditors are left waiting for years to get the money owed to them.
Arizona Revised Statute Section 23-108.01 describes the duties of the Arizona Industrial Commission.
The first thing everyone wants to know when talking to an attorney about a possible lawsuit is how much their case is worth. Unfortunately, this is a question that can only be answered by the judge or jury that may ultimately hear your case. Although an attorney may be able to provide an opinion of the value of a case based on his or her experience with similar cases in the past, you should be leery of any lawyer who claims to be able to estimate such a value before having collected all the necessary information to ascertain your damages and weigh them against the strength of the claim that the defendant is liable for your damages.