Not too long ago, I litigated a case that turned on the enforceability of a pay-if-paid clause. The very good attorneys on the other side argued that the clause at issue was enforceable, such that it excused their general contractor client’s failure to pay. I argued, on behalf of my subcontractor client, that the provision was unenforceable. The trial court agreed with me on summary judgment, which led to a very favorable settlement for my client.
So what was wrong with the clause the parties were fighting over? Among other things, I argued that it did not comply with the requirements set forth in L. Harvey Concrete, Inc. v. Agro Const. & Supply Co., 189 Ariz. 178, 939 P.2d 811 (App. 1997). L. Harvey is the seminal Arizona case on pay-if-paid clauses. It holds that pay-if-paid provisions are enforceable if they meet the following three requirements:
I will preface this post by saying that I am neither an accountant nor a tax attorney. If you have specific questions or concerns about Arizona’s new transaction privilege tax laws, please talk to your accountant.
Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 33-729 and 33-814 are commonly referred to as Arizona’s “anti-deficiency statutes.” In certain circumstances they prevent a lender from pursuing a borrower for a deficiency when, through a foreclosure or trustee’s sale, a property is sold for less than the amount owed to the lender. Specifically, borrowers have been exempt from deficiency judgments so long as the following criteria are met:
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department has just announced that it is now offering Basic Rule 310 Dust Control training classes online. Online classes are available to those seeking new certifications and those looking to renew their certifications.