Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
ALOSI v. Hewitt
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012-05-03 · cited 14×
In Alosi v. Hewitt, Joseph Alosi sued Audrey Fuller and related companies after Fuller negligently collided with his motorcycle while driving a company-owned car on personal and business errands; Alosi later sought to add William Hewitt (Fuller's romantic partner and owner of the companies) as a defendant under Arizona's family purpose doctrine and an agency/respondeat superior theory. The trial court denied leave to amend on the family purpose claim, allowed the agency claim to proceed, and later granted Hewitt summary judgment on that claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Hewitt and Fuller did not qualify as a "family" under the doctrine because they were co-equal romantic partners with shared vehicle access rather than a head-of-household arrangement, and that no vicarious liability arose from their personal relationship or her employment even though she was running errands at Hewitt's request. The court therefore upheld judgment in Hewitt's favor.
family lawtorts & liability
Gold v. HELVETICA SERVICING, INC.
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012-04-03 · cited 4×
This case arose from a judicial foreclosure on a Paradise Valley home owned by Kelly and Michael Pasquan as community property. After Helvetica Servicing obtained a foreclosure judgment and bought the property at a sheriff’s sale for $400,000, Michael requested a fair-market-value determination under A.R.S. § 12-1566(C) to reduce any deficiency; Kelly later attempted to assign her statutory redemption rights to Ronald Gold so he could redeem the property. The central issue was whether one judgment debtor’s FMV application eliminated the co-debtor’s separate right to redeem. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 12-1566(C) extinguishes all redemption rights once any debtor seeks an FMV determination, because the statute substitutes a court-determined fair market value for the sale price when calculating deficiency credits for all jointly and severally liable parties. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal of Gold’s quiet-title action, noting that the redemption right exists to protect against an unfairly low sale price rather than to permit a debtor to retain or reacquire the home.
propertyprocedurefamily law
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012-02-07 · cited 8×
The case concerned whether Sedona's 2008 Short-Term Vacation Rental Enforcement Ordinance, which made short-term rentals of residential property a misdemeanor, triggered compensation obligations under Arizona's Private Property Rights Protection Act (A.R.S. §§ 12-1131 to 12-1138) by reducing property owners' preexisting rights to use and sell their land. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, finding the Ordinance exempt from the Act because its stated purpose was to protect public health and safety. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a government entity claiming the Act's public-health-and-safety exemption must present evidence that this was the law's principal purpose rather than relying on its declared intent alone, and that the Act applies to any post-2006 expansion of preexisting land-use restrictions. The court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the Ordinance's actual primary purpose and on whether the owner's option agreements had already been prohibited under the 1995 land-development code.
propertybusiness & regulatorycriminal law
Higginbotham v. AN MOTORS OF SCOTTSDALE
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012-02-02 · cited 4×
In Higginbotham v. AN Motors of Scottsdale, the plaintiff sued a parts-delivery driver’s employer and staffing agency for negligence and wrongful death after the driver struck the plaintiff and his wife with his vehicle, killing the wife and injuring the plaintiff. The superior court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the driver was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident because he was off-duty during a gap between scheduled delivery runs. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case, ruling that whether an employee remains within the scope of employment during an authorized refreshment break is generally a question of fact. The court reasoned that Arizona precedent recognizes such breaks as potentially incidental to employment when they occur within authorized time and space limits and the employer retains some right of control, and that genuine factual disputes existed here about the driver’s status during the interval before his next required check-in.
labor & employmenttorts & liability
BNSF Railway Co. v. Buttrick
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011-12-29
In BNSF Railway Co. v. Buttrick, BNSF challenged a trial court's protective order issued in Roy Crain's Federal Employers’ Liability Act lawsuit, which barred the railroad from requesting medical notices that Crain was obligated to provide under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between his union and BNSF, and from disciplining him for noncompliance via a scheduled CBA hearing. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the order, holding that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. The court explained that the CBA proceeding—conducted under the Railway Labor Act to address potential employee misconduct—was an independent, parallel process outside the state court's authority, and the trial court's power to regulate discovery in the FELA case did not permit it to interfere with BNSF's separate contractual rights to obtain work-related medical information. The opinion emphasized that each forum could manage its own proceedings without encroaching on the other.
labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability
Burlingame Industries, Inc. v. Maricopa County
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011-08-23
The case involved Burlingame Industries appealing a personal property tax valuation directly to the tax court after a miscommunication with the Maricopa County Assessor prevented a timely administrative appeal to a board of equalization. The tax court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies was required. The appeals court reversed, ruling that A.R.S. §§ 42-15104(2) and 42-16201 create a direct statutory right to appeal personal property valuations to the tax court as an alternative to administrative review. The core reasoning was that the plain language of these statutes permits judicial appeal regardless of whether administrative remedies have been exhausted, consistent with prior precedent applying the same provisions to real property, and that related procedural statutes do not eliminate this direct option.
taxespropertyprocedure