Custom-Drafted Short-Term Rental Agreement for VRBO
Mar 28, 2016
OUTCOME: I drafted a short-term rental agreement that is NOT subject to the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act AND provided the client with a comprehensive plan for ensuring the Act would not apply to future occupants of the vacation rental property.
Client wanted a short-term rental agreement for vacation rental property listed on VRBO (Vacation Rentals By Owner) that was NOT subject to the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (the "Act"). ...I analyzed the client's facts under Arizona law and opined that the client's vacation rental property (after various steps were taken) was NOT subject to the Act and, instead, was controlled by the same Arizona statutes that govern hotels and motels.
Landlord or tenant
Custom-Drafted Rental Agreement
Feb 03, 2016
OUTCOME: I drafted a rental agreement for this client that complied with Arizona law AND that included many provisions that favored the landlord. The client also received 1 hour of consultation time to be used anytime during the next 12 months.
Client came to me with rental agreement that was drafted by the Arizona Association of Realtors (AAR). The AAR rental agreement is a copyrighted form. This client was not a Realtor and, therefore, wa...s not legally entitled to use this form. In addition, although the AAR 02/2008 form is an adequate form (i.e., complies with Arizona law), it was drafted to be "fair" to both the landlord and the tenant. The Arizona Landlord/Tenant Act already favors tenants, but additional provisions can lawfully be included that give the landlord additional rights.
Landlord or tenant
Appeal case lost by landlord in justice court
Sep 30, 2015
OUTCOME: I successfully appealed the judgment against the landlord; the judgment was vacated and a new trial ordered
The landlord filed a lawsuit against a tenant in justice court for past due rent and property damage. The trial court ruled in favor of the tenant and awarded a judgment against the landlord of $9,000 ...(for the tenant's attorney's fees and court costs). I prepared and filed the appellate brief on behalf of the landlord. The superior court (which was the appellate court for this case) overturned the lower court's decision, vacated the judgment, and ordered a new trial in justice court.
Real estate
Property Manager & Real Estate Office Documents
Apr 16, 2012
OUTCOME: I custom-drafted each of these documents. Each document complied with Arizona law AND included provisions that CLEARLY favored the broker, property manager and the broker's clients (i.e., owners/landlords).
Client is an Arizona real estate broker who does property management and real estate sales. Client needed: (1) an office policy manual (required by the Arizona Real Estate Commissioner's rules), (2) a... broker-agent agreement, (3) a lease agreement form that favored the landlord/owner, and (4) a property management agreement that protected the broker and property manager.
Landlord or tenant
Keenan v Biles - written opinion issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals
Jan 01, 2001
OUTCOME: The court ruled in favor of the landlord and held that the eviction action could continue even though possession was no longer an issue.
I represented the landlord in an eviction action. An eviction action in Arizona is a summary (expedited) proceeding that determines who is entitled to possession of the property. A landlord cannot fi...le an eviction action if the landlord has already recovered possession from the tenant. In this case, the landlord did not have possession at the time the case was filed. After the case was filed, however, the tenants voluntarily gave possession of the rental property to the landlord. The issue that went to the Arizona Court of Appeals was whether a landlord may continue the eviction and receive a judgment for monetary amounts (i.e., rent, late fees, etc.) if possession is no longer an issue. The citation (where the full text of the case can be found) is: Keenen v. Biles, 199 Ariz. 266, 17 P.3d 111 (App. 2001). The Court said:"It seems incongruous to read the statute as ending the landlord's rights to recoup these expenses simply because the tenant gives up possession of the premises after a special detainer action was filed. To interpret the statute as the Biles suggest would essentially eviscerate the landlord's statutory protections. A tenant could hold out until a special detainer action was filed, then turn possession over to the landlord and walk away unscathed. Further, A.R.S. section 33-1305(A) states that "[t]he remedies provided by this chapter shall be so administered that the aggrieved party may recover appropriate damages." We, therefore, interpret sections 33-1377 and 33-1368 to allow judgment to be rendered for costs, rents, and attorney fees even though actual possession of the property may no longer be at issue." Id., 199 Ariz. at 267, 17 P.3d 112.
