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
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
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.
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
5. Calaveras had long term agreement with other vineyards to meet its demand but their
(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
Habitat for Humanity homeownership is income based; therefore, any future property tax assessments should c...
One of the key issues Forked River Brewing Company will face is the distribution channels of bottled beers. Although the operations of retail sales ran smoothly in the past, the company still need to focus on the problem in the future. The sales through LCBO and Beer Stores are limited because of limited shelf space. In order to enlarge customer base and increase sales, the company should solve the problem in the future.
Deere & Company (Deere) has been experiencing a decrease in its profit margins for one of its aftermarket resale products, specifically the gatherer chain, over the past couple of years. Currently, the cost-price ratio is at 80% compared to last year’s 50%. The purchase cost for the gatherer chain has been steadily increasing, while the aftermarket price has been decreasing. Deere has been budgeting its price to match that of a major competitor, which has been causing the decrease. The company’s main supplier of its gatherer chain is Saunders Manufacturing, with which Deere has established a long term relationship. The owner of Saunders has a reputation of being a tough negotiator, and is someone who is known for not willing to share financial information about the company. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce has provided financial estimates in Saunders’ industry as follows: material spend, 42%; direct labor, 16%; indirect labor, 6%; Overhead, 20%. These percentages are helpful to Deere because they can be used in the negotiation process with Sanders. Since Sanders will not share any specific cost information, Deere is able to use these estimates as a way to justify Sanders reducing its prices. Using these estimates during the negotiations might also incentivize Sanders to provide accurate numbers for its specific manufacturing costs.
FACTS: Anthony and Alcibia Jeanmarie sold a house to a woman named Melanie Murray. Murray used two loans with balances of $104,000 and $26,000 from Encore Credit Corporation to secure the mortgage for the property. Mark Peoples, who works for Pyramid Title, LLC, made sure to sign the check of $110,303.86 to pay the Jeanmaries for the property sold. However, there were insufficient funds for the company since the loan of $26,000 was not “timely funded,” according to Peoples. The Jeanmaries took Peoples to court because they believe he is liable for the returned check because Peoples had authorized the check with his signature.
Vincent Morgan is a police officer in Little Rock, Arkansas who stopped Vivian Rogers for a cracked tail light. She was asked for car insurance, but she did not have it. Morgan called a tow truck, then he cancelled it because he chose to follow her home in the police vehicle. Morgan followed Rogers in the house, and he told her that he will let her off the hook for a favor. Next, Morgan began kissing all over Rogers and told her to undress. Rogers started undressing and Morgan told her that she did not have to make love to him. Roger stopped taking off her clothes and Morgan finished stripping her down. He pushed her on the bed and had sex with her. Roger started yelling because
The race is always a big part of any society, but it is probably a very critical subject in the American society. The United States is one of the most diverse countries in the world in terms of race, religion, culture, and other subjects. The United States passed by much racial inequality, and segregation, which was by-laws. But, when time passed, many of these laws were revised and new laws were held to ensure equality. The United States courts have experienced many cases regarding racial inequality in terms of education and admissions to the universities. The Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) is a very important and recent case because it was after many similar cases that affected the affirmative action policies in universities admission.
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.
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,
The construction site was in a downtown area of a large southeastern city, criss-crossed with city streets, utilities, and immediately adjacent to mid-rise and high rise buildings. Nearly all of the work was required to be constructed within temporary piling structures to limit settlement of adjacent structures. The construction contract called for seven phase releases of work areas and nine completion milestones, each milestone has its own liquidated damages penalty. The construction contract was valued at $10 million, and the duration was 545 calendar days. Following the completion of the work, the contractor filed a claim for $5.5 million and 1.1 million in interest. The authority subsequently denied the claim and the contractor, in accordance with the contract, filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association. Following the contractor’s issuance of the demand letter, the parties agreed to resolve the dispute through negotiation” (Ray,
Jones was party to the contract and mortgage together with Mrs Jones as surety for her husband, even though Mrs Jones was the actual owner of the property. This produced a legal consequence as it affected the appellants with a conduct on the part of the husband in relation to his wife which raised equities in her favour against the indication of a mortgage. The husband exercised undue influence on Mrs Jones to procure her signature to the mortgage which consisted of no consideration. The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant upon a contract to pay interest and principal contained in the mortgage over the property at Walkerville owned by Mrs Jones. It was understood that Mrs Jones executed the mortgage without understanding the effect of the contract and presumed various false misrepresentations. She argued that the mortgage which she s...