John Impellizzeri (the firm’s client) was the Plaintiff and Kenneth Sloniger was the Defendant in a lawsuit brought by Impellizzeri for Sloniger’s misrepresentations and errors in selling Impellizzeri certain life insurance. Sloniger’s insurance company defended him in the claims, but reserved rights to deny coverage. Because of the reservation of rights, Sloniger was partially released from his duty to cooperate with the insurer and entered a stipulated judgment in favor of Impellizzeri.
Impellizzeri then attempted to enforce the stipulated judgment against Sloniger’s insurance company. Judge Anna Baca found in favor of Impellizzeri and allowed him to enforce the judgment against American Automobile Insurance Company, but only to the extent that the stipulated judgment represented a reasonable settlement of the claims against Sloniger. View the Superior Court Ruling.
In this case, the firm’s client purchased a home in North Scottsdale. Unbeknownst to her, the home had been used by the sellers to breed and kennel large numbers of dogs over several years. Upon moving into the home, the buyer’s daughter and grandson had severe allergic reactions. They subsequently discovered that the home was used to breed dogs, but that fact was not disclosed before the sale.
Berk & Moskowitz, P.C. filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court against the sellers and their agent, Century 21. After trial, Judge Peter Reinstein found in favor of the buyer and assessed 95% of the fault to Century 21 for not disclosing the history of the home. The Judge awarded the seller full diminution in value caused by the prior use. Read the Ruling.
This case involved the liability of an Arizona couple’s marital community under a contract that was subject to Georgia law. In the case, a Georgia husband (Ogle) and an Arizona husband (Richmond) executed a contract in Georgia, that was to be performed in Georgia, and that specified it was to be governed by Georgia law. The parties subsequently sued each other, and their wives, in Arizona. Berk & Moskowitz represented Ogle at trial.
The trial court dismissed the claims against Ogle’s wife because Georgia is not a marital community property state. Richmond’s wife then moved to dismiss the claims against her, arguing that the contract was governed by Georgia law, therefore, Georgia law should govern the Richmonds’ marital community rights and liabilities as well. The trial court agreed and dismissed Richmond’s wife from the case, but refused to enter final judgment against her at that time. The case proceeded to trial (in the absence of Richmond who failed to appear) without further input or defense from Richmond’s wife, and a judgment for $1,037,060 was entered in favor of Ogle against Richmond.
On behalf of Ogle, Berk & Moskowitz appealed the dismissal of Richmond’s wife. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Richmond’s wife, holding that, notwithstanding the choice of law provision in the contract, Arizona law governs the obligations of marital communities domiciled in Arizona. The Court of Appeals reasoned that applying Georgia law to immunize the Richmond’s marital community from liability “would effectively abrogate” Arizona’s community property laws, and particularly A.R.S. § 25-215(c), which provides that “community property is liable for a spouse’s debts incurred outside of this state during the marriage which would have been community debts if incurred in this state.”
The court of appeals further ordered that, on remand, Richmond’s wife was entitled to dispute whether, or to what extent, the Richmond’s marital community was liable for Richmond’s debt, but that she could no longer dispute the debt itself.
Read the Court of Appeals Memorandum Decision
In this case, Berk & Moskowitz, P.C. represented the buyers in a real estate fraud and misrepresentation case against the seller/builder/developer, Jackson Properties. Before buying the home, the seller’s agent represented that a nearby dairy would be closed, such that the buyers did not need to be concerned about flies, smells and other offensive conditions. Based on those representations, the buyers purchased the home.
Later, the buyers discovered that the dairy owner had no plans to close and that the seller’s agent knew that fact. Berk & Moskowitz filed suit on behalf of the sellers for consumer fraud, negligent misrepresentation and fraud, and sought rescission -to undo the entire deal and obtain a refund of the buyers’ payments in connection with the property.
The Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court Judge, Kenneth Mangum, found for the buyers and awarded full rescission and emotional distress damages.
Read the Ruling
