Source: http://rsalawaz.blogspot.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:55:27+00:00

Document:
A.R.S. § 32-2151.02(A) requires “real estate employment agreements” to “[b]e signed by all parties to the agreement.” Although the statute of frauds only requires the signature of the “parties to be charged,” that is not enough under § 32-2151.02(A). 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. In Arizona, an electronic signature “satisfies any law that requires a signature.” A.R.S. § 44-7007(D). Whether something in an email satisfies the statute may be a question of fact. Young v. Rose, 1 CA-CV 10-0786, 9/25/12.
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.
Under Arizona law, property is “mislaid” if the owner intentionally places it in a certain place and later forgets about it. 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. 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. Grande v. Jennings, 1 CA-CV 11-0148, 5/31/12.
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.
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.” A variety of actions, including repossession of property, can be sufficient to demonstrate that the creditor has exercised its option to accelerate the payments. An internal write off is not, however, such an affirmative act but rather merely an internal accounting procedure. Baseline Financial Services v. Madison, 1 CA-CV 11-0557, 6/5/12.
Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act prohibits, inter alia, the use of any misrepresentation in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise. A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). An automobile dealer who voluntarily forwards a misleading email from the manufacturer containing misrepresentations may be liable under the Act. That the dealer is merely the “messenger” and not the original source of the misrepresentation is not a defense. Powers v. Guaranty RV, Inc., 1 CA-CV 11-0062, 6/12/12.
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. A deficiency action therefore is subject to an arbitration clause in a promissory note. Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Schwartz, 1 CA-CV 10-0772, 6/26/12.
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. AutoZone argued that the CFA required an intent element and that its mispricing and non-pricing were unintentional. The State argued that the CFA imposes strict liability. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of AutoZone and the State appealed. The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the State’s strict liability argument and found that the CFA requires a form of intent. 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. 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.
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently concluded that Arizona law did not require the sale or transfer of a damaged vehicle in order to establish a claim for diminution of value. Arizona 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.
Robert Stewart & Associates, P.C. and its attorneys are "AV Preeminent" rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

References: § 32
 § 32
 § 44
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 44
 v. 
 v.