CASE NAME: BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC A: COURT DECIDING THE CASE: Supreme Court of Arizona B: COURT APPEALED FROM: Arizona Court of Appeals C: WHO IS THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF: BMO Harris Bank WHO IS THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT: Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC D: Prior Proceedings: (What happened in the lower courts): BMO Harris Bank, hereby known as Mortgagee, sought action against Wildwood Creek Ranch, hereby known as Mortgagors and Guarantors subsequent to the foreclosure on an unimproved lot. Summary judgement was granted by the Superior Court in favor of the mortgagors and guarantor. Mortgagee appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment. E: Concise statement of the issue(s) being appealed: …show more content…
A deed of trust was used to secure the loan. The lot remained undeveloped and construction never commenced. The loan note was renewed in 2009 and later defaulted on in 2011. The lot was then foreclosed upon and sold through a trustee’s sale by BMO Harris Bank. The vacant lot was bought by a third party in the amount of $31,100. Wildwood Creek was then sued by BMO for the existing …show more content…
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Dev. Corp., 167 Ariz. 122, 128, 804 P.2d 1310, 1316 (1991) when analyzing the present case. The issue is in the Mid Kansas case whether the anti-deficiency statute applied to residential developers whose restricted trust properties were at one point improved by a finished dwelling. It was held that the mortgagor’s identity is irrelevant if the property fits within the statutory classification. This holding was supported by the principal element of the dwelling that is suitable for human presence or intended as such. It was concluded that the language in the statutes include the present tense “is…utilized for,” which suggests that the property must have such a dwelling is already completed in its construction. There were concerns in regards to the anti-deficiency statute was to be applied to the am unfinished dwelling. One concern if such applied was that borrowers would begin to camp on the lots so that it would be classified as a dwelling. Another concern was that it would not be fair for the anti-deficiency statute to apply to one who lives in a completed dwelling for a day and not one who has yet to move in. The holding in the Mid Kansas case contradicted such language causing it to be
In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, plaintiff was looking for a job with defendant, Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Plaintiff, Laduzinski, claimed that he was lured away from his job under false pretenses since defendants hired him to get access to his contacts. Nine months later, after plaintiff had given all his contacts, the manager of the Alvarez companies fired him because there was no work for him. Laduzinski brought a claim to recover damages for fraud in the inducement. The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises.
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
MILLERSBURG — After deliberating for three hours, a jury of four women and eight men found a Holmesville man guilty of making and possessing methamphetamine, all within the vicinity of juveniles and a school.
Habitat for Humanity homeownership is income based; therefore, any future property tax assessments should c...
Wolford General Partnership (WGP) operates plumbing supply business which is also an exclusive supplier for certain stable construction firms. Because of its excellent reputations and services, WGP is able to an extremely profitable entity for the business. WGP uses an accrual method of accounting and has been using June 30 fiscal year for the tax report purpose after its election of §444 since its formation.
...ate a sense of urgency to bring in businesses to Tracy to help stimulate the local economy.
Gummow and Bell JJ concluded that clause 1 of the Deed signed Rural’s debts and its interests under the loan agreements to Equuscorp. Their Honours observed that the phrase “other remedies for these matters” located in clause 2 assigned a claim in restitution for money had and received . Heydon J agreed with this decision on similar grounds .
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
...ss is hard to qualify in a world where the acquisition of material goods masquerades for success. A home is a material object that exists within a concrete reality. It exists with its own qualities of a house built of materials that do change and degrade over time. The costs of homeownership are harder to dismiss when one becomes disillusioned with the effects of a lack of attention to those costs.
At the trial, after Sue calls her witnesses, offers her evidence, and otherwise presents her side of the case, Tom has at least two choices between courses of action. Tom can call his first witness. What else might he do? (See Following a State Court Case.)
(i) only the periods the property was held by the person relinquishing the property (or any related person) shall be taken into account under subparagraph (B)(i), and