Date and Time: Tuesday, April 23, 4:00 – 5:00 pm CLE Credit: May Qualify for 1.0 CLE Credit Seminar Location: State court building at 1501 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona, on the First Floor in Room 101 Registration: FREE For Appellate Practice Section Members, $20 for Non-Members. To register for program, click HERE. Faculty: Hon. Sara J. Agne Hon. Andrew Jacobs Eric M. Fraser Moderator: David A. Timchak ..read more

The judges on Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals sit together on assigned three-judge panels—called “Departments”—for four-month intervals. The Court has released a new organizational order assigning the panels for July 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. Beginning July 1, the new Department assignments will be: Department A: Jennifer B. Campbell (P) Kent E. Cattani (AP) Paul J. McMurdie Department B: Michael J. Brown (P) D. Steven Williams (AP) Daniel J. Kiley Department C: Cynthia J. Bailey (P) Anni Hill Foster (AP) Angela K. Paton Department D: Michael S. Catlett (P) Jennifer M. Pe ..read more

An insured filed an action seeking underinsured motorist coverage. On summary judgment, the insurer argued that the coverage was time-barred under A.R.S. §12-555(C)(2) because the insured had failed to request arbitration or respond to the insurer’s request for arbitration. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, finding that the insured never requested arbitration. The court of appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part. By statute (A.R.S. § 12-555(A)), insureds must provide their insurer with a written notice of claim. After receiving a notice of claim ..read more

In 1995, a plaintiff obtained title to a lot in Maricopa County. A warranty deed conveying the property to the defendant was executed, notarized, and recorded in 2003. 16 years after the deed was recorded, the plaintiff discovered the deed and sued the defendant seeking to quiet title to the property and asserting a false-document claim alleging that the defendant forged the deed. The plaintiff also recorded a lis pendens on the property. The defendant filed a separate action against the plaintiff seeking quiet title to the property and asserting a false document claim based on the lis pendens ..read more

Topics:  Effective Brief Writing and Oral Argument; Insider’s Guide to Ninth Circuit Practice and Recent Policy Updates Date and Time: Thursday, April 4, 2024, 2:00–4:00 pm CLE Credit: 1.5 hours for in-person attendees Cost: Free Reception: A reception will immediately follow the program Seminar Location: Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ, Jury Assembly Room Registration links: Register by 3/22/24 for the in-person seminar by clicking HERE The Program will be livestreamed, and the link will be posted HERE Presenters: Ninth Circuit Judges&nbs ..read more

A couple filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. They claimed that their motor home, which they used as a full-time residence, was subject to the homestead exemption as a mobile home under § 33-1101(A)(3). Section 33-1101(A) sets out Arizona’s homestead exemption, which renders a single homestead not exceeding $250,000 exempt from execution and forced sale. The trustee objected to this exemption, arguing that the couple’s motor home could not qualify as a mobile home under Arizona law. The bankruptcy judge certified the question—whether a motor home may be subject to the Arizona homestead exemption as ..read more

Husband and wife property owners executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust to borrow against their property from an investment company. The property owners defaulted, but the company did not take any action to collect on the debt over the proceeding ten years. The property owners eventually filed a lawsuit against the investment company to clear the title of their property. They argued that the statute of limitations on the debt had expired, which invalidated the deed. The company successfully moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing a more recent statute extended the time to initia ..read more

For decades, an Arizona city entered into agreements with a non-profit corporation to operate a competitive youth swimming program at the city’s pools in exchange for a license for the use of the city’s pools when they weren’t being used for other public programs. Around 2006, a different entity began seeking to replace the non-profit as the operator of the swimming program and the license. In 2016, the city renewed the license with the non-profit. A year later, the challenger entity complained that the license was granted for below-market rates, in violation of the Arizona Constitution’s Gift ..read more

Consumer purchased an automobile, which was financed by Secured Lienholder.  The automobile served as collateral for the loan. Consumer obtained an insurance policy on the automobile through Insurer. When obtaining the insurance policy, Consumer made misrepresentations—omitting herself as a driver and taking the policy out in the name of her incarcerated ex-spouse. Later, Consumer filed an insurance claim stemming from damage to the automobile. Insurer denied all coverage, claiming the policy was null and void from its inception and rescinding the policy. Secured Lienholder thereafter sue ..read more

An employee signed a “Mutual Agreement for Dispute Resolution” that provided for mutually binding arbitration governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). When the employment relationship soured and after the woman resigned, the woman sued the company in various New York courts. A year later, she filed a similar suit in Maricopa County Superior Court. In response to the Arizona action, the company filed a combined motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action. The company argued it was seeking to compel arbitration on “cognizable claims,” but, because the woman’s claims were barre ..read more