Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C. (2009)

Defendants now contend the court erred because the change deprived them of revenues they reasonably expected to receive under the agreements. ¶29 "Whether a party has breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a question of fact." Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333, ¶ 28 , 214 P.3d 415, 421 (App. 2009).

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333-34, ¶ 32 , 214 P.3d 415, 421-22 (App. 2009). ¶ 56 Augusta Ranch asked the court to award it $687,941 in fees against SWC, Cal Bank and AR.

See Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333, ¶ 27 (App. 2009) ("the record contains substantial evidence that [appellee] did not materially breach the lease"). ¶16 Substantial evidence supports the superior court's finding that Lux Air materially breached the leases, thereby permitting YCAA to cancel after October 1.

We review a trial court’s award of costs for an abuse of discretion, Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333-34, ¶ 32 , 214 P.3d 415, 421-22 (App. 2009), but the issue of whether a particular expenditure qualifies as a taxable cost is a question of law that we review de novo.

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333, ¶ 28 , 214 P.3d 415, 421 (App.2009). ¶ 42 The Trust argues that Mills wrongly insisted that it cure ESAD’s default and assume the lease, wrongly asserted that the Trust had to remove the collateral, and wrongly refused to recognize its own agreement in the Consent to subordinate its interest in the collateral to the Trust.

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 334, ¶¶ 34-35 , 214 P.3d 415, 422 (App.2009) (applying principle in context of determining who is the “successful party” under AR.S. § 12-341.01 (2003)). ¶ 32 Unlike discretionary fee awards made pursuant to AR.S. § 12-341.01(A), the trial court lacks discretion to deny a fee award required by the terms of the parties’ contract. 10 Chase Bank of Ariz. v. Acosta, 179 Ariz. 563, 575 , 880 P.2d 1109, 1121 (App.1994).

Thus, we will affirm the superior court’s award of fees if it is supported by “any reasonable basis.” Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 334, ¶ 32 , 214 P.3d 415, 422 (App.2009) (citation omitted). ¶ 81 “The decision as to who is the successful party for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees is within the sole discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.” Id., ¶ 35 (quoting Sanborn v. Brook…

DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING “In Arizona, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract.” Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327 , 214 P.3d 415, 421 (Ct.App.2009) (citing Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer, 202 Ariz. 420, 423 , 46 P.3d 431, 434 (Ct.App.2002)).

Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 334, ¶ 35 (App. 2009)); see Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP, 229 Ariz. at 133, ¶ 31 ("We will uphold the court's implicit determination that [the defendant] is not the 'prevailing party' if it had a reasonable basis for doing so, thereby properly exercising its discretion."). ¶14 The HOA argues it was the prevailing party based on the parties' stipulation.

Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 334, ¶ 35 (App. 2009) (prevailing party determination “will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.”).

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333-34, ¶ 32 (App. 2009).

Because the phrase “settle any contested action arising out of a contract” implies an offer made during a legal proceeding rather than before a lawsuit is filed, Wakefield asserts the court committed error by considering prelitigation settlement offers. ¶87 “The decision as to who is the successful party for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees is within the sole discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.” Maleki…

Ariz. 2017) (quoting Bike Fashion Corp. v. Kramer, 46 P.3d 431, 435 (2002)). 6 “Whether a party has breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a 7 question of fact.” BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Mini Works, LLC, 166 F. Supp. 3d 976, 985 (D. 8 Ariz. 2010 ) (quoting Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., 214 P.3d 415, 421 (Ariz. 9 Ct. App. 2009)).

Fund, 201 Ariz. 474 , 493, ¶¶ 69–70 (2002); Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333, ¶ 28 (App. 2009).

See Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333, ¶ 27 (App. 2009) ("the record contains substantial evidence that [appellee] did not materially breach the lease"). ¶9 The Arizona Supreme Court has adopted the factors set out in Restatement (Second) of Contracts ("Restatement") § 241 (1981) as a "workable standard to evaluate the triviality of a breach." Found.

Prevailing Party. ¶24 The Agreement provided that “the prevailing party shall recover ... reimbursement for reasonable attorney’s fees.” The Agreement did not define “prevailing party” and specifically excluded “any statutes or case law to the contrary,” The Agreement provided in relevant part the parties “specifically waive application of the holding and rationale of the Edsall decision and any rules, statutes, or court opinions of like effect in Arizona.” 9 In entering the…

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., LLC, 222 Ariz. 327, 333-34, ¶ 32 (App. 2009).

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., LLC, 222 Ariz. 327, 333-34, ¶ 32 (App. 2009).

Fire Ins., 225 Ariz. 194, 212, ¶ 80 (App. 2010) (citing Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 334, ¶ 32 (App. 2009)). ¶23 Husband has not cited any authority requiring Wife to cite the specific basis for her request for an award of fees from the family court in a domestic relations matter, and we find none.

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333, ¶ 28 , 214 P.3d 415 (App.2009) (citing Wells Fargo, 201 Ariz. at 493, ¶¶ 69-70 , 38 P.3d 12 ). ¶ 24 The language of the Agreement authorizes termination only upon Borrower’s default.

We review a trial court’s award of fees and costs for an abuse of discretion, Maleki v. Desert Palms Profl Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327 , 333-34 ¶ 32, 214 P.3d 415, 421-22 (App.2009), and will uphold the court’s ruling if it has “any reasonable basis,” State Farm Mut.

Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333-34, ¶ 32 (App. 2009).

“The decision as to who is the successful party for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees is within the sole discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.” Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Properties, L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327 , 214 P.3d 415, 422 (Ariz.Ct.App.2009) (quoting Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Prop.

“Whether a party has breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a question of fact.” Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333 , 214 P.3d 415, 421 (App.2009).

“Whether a party has breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a question of fact.” Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof’l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333 , 214 P.3d 415, 421 (App. 2009).

Cf. Maleki v. Desert Palms Profl Props., L.L.C, 222 Ariz. 327, ¶ 35 , 214 P.3d 415, 422 (App.2009) (‘“The decision as to who is the successful party for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees [pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01] is within the sole discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.’ ”), quoting Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Prop.

See Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327, 333, ¶ 27 (App. 2009).

See Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C., 222 Ariz. 327 , 214 P.3d 415 (App. 2009) (whether tenant may exercise his right to renew depends on whether breach is material, serious, or substantial.) (Internal citations omitted.) 10 ARIK v. RGO Decision of the Court ¶25 RGO argues that conflicting evidence exists as to whether Argo timely received the April 3, 2012 letter exercising the option to renew the lease.11 We find no error in the trial court’s analysis…

See Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., 222 Ariz. 327, 333, ¶ 28 , 214 P.3d 415, 421 (App.2009).