Latest news with #ArizonaLegislature
Yahoo
23-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Parents' home in Gilbert sold for well under market value. It was 'equity skimming'
Question: In 2019, my parents sold the family home in Gilbert and moved to a continuing care facility 3 miles away. They had purchased the family home in the 1980's for $185,000. Both of my parents passed away last year. My sister and I were going through their paperwork recently. We were shocked to find that our parents had signed a contract with a buyer to sell the home, which was in pristine condition, for only $290,000. This buyer, while in escrow sold the home to another buyer for $425,000, and the sale closed. My sister is a Realtor, and she said that the fair market of the home in 2019 was at least $425,000. In other words, my parents were cheated out of at least $135,000. Is there anything that we can do now, or is it too late? Answer: Probably too late. The original $290,000 buyer in this transaction was a 'wholesale' buyer. In other words, a buyer who never intends to close escrow, but intends to assign the purchase contract in escrow to another buyer for a higher price. This was 'equity skimming.' Some escrows would even have three or four wholesalers raising the price of the home in increments from the $100,000 contract price to a $200,000 closing price. Fortunately, in 2022 the Arizona Legislature passed A.R.S. 44-5101, which requires a wholesale buyer to disclose in writing to the seller of a home that the wholesale buyer will be assigning the purchase contract for a higher price to another buyer who will close the escrow for the purchase of the home. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: What to know about 'equity skimming' in real estate Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Can a homebuilder decide what to exclude from a home warranty in Arizona?
Question: We bought a new home on a view lot near North Mountain. After we moved in, we immediately began having problems with the sprinkler system and other exterior water lines. We have a two-year written warranty from our homebuilder, so we expected that our homebuilder would do the necessary repairs. When we contacted them, our homebuilder's representative came to our home. He showed us language in our two-year written warranty that specifically excluded 'exterior' water lines. Why would 'interior' water lines be warranted, but not 'exterior' water lines? Is that language enforceable? Answer: Probably not. Under ARS 12-552 a homebuilder by law impliedly warrants ALL construction of a new home for eight years. A homebuilder, however, can acquire an insurance policy which has limited coverage, but that doesn't limit the homebuilder's ARS 12-552 warranty. Note: Under English common law, a homebuilder of a castle or a cottage gave a lifetime warranty. After an Arizona homebuilder was held liable for defective stucco 12 years after the home was built, the Arizona Legislature passed ARS 12-552 with the eight-year limitation of liability. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Can a homebuilder make exclusions in a home warranty in Arizona?
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Many people to blame for Layla Ramos' death, but the shooter isn't one
Contrary to what you may have read, there were two victims this week when a 5-year-old Phoenix girl was shot and killed in her south Phoenix home. Layla Ramos is dead, but she is not the only victim here. Her 9-year-old brother, who Phoenix police say fired the bullet that killed her, also is a victim — one who will have to live with this week's tragedy for the rest of his life. Of course, it wasn't his fault. It was the fault of his father, Irvin Ramos-Jimenez, 33, who shouldn't have even had a rifle, much less stored it in his son's bedroom. It was the fault — though not legally — of whomever sold him the AR-15-style rifle. In Arizona, you can sell your gun privately to any Tom, Dick or dirty Harry, no questions asked. And it's the fault of the Arizona Legislature, which refuses to pass a bill requiring universal background checks. Had the previous gun owner been required to check, he presumably would have learned that he was selling his rifle to a man who can't legally possess one. According to court records, Ramos-Jimenez, 33, told police he has a prior felony drug conviction for narcotics and can't legally possess a firearm. So, he bought one anyway through a private sale, for 'personal protection.' Then he stored it in his 9-year-old son's bedroom closet. Court records say he also had a handgun in his truck. Ramos-Jiminez was arrested after the June 3 death of his daughter, on suspicion of possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Let me count the ways our leaders could at least attempt to avoid such tragedy in the future. They could pass a bill requiring that every gun sale in Arizona be preceded by a background check, to determine whether the purchaser is legally allowed to own a firearm. They could pass a bill holding a seller liable if he or she doesn't do that background check and a little girl dies. They could pass a bill requiring gun owners to store their weapons responsibly, so that 9-year-old boys can't gain easy access and kill their sisters. So, what will the Arizona Legislature do to try to avoid the tragedy of another 5-year-old being put into a far-too-early grave? Or a 9-year-old put into what likely will be a self-imposed lifelong purgatory? Absolutely nothing. Reach Roberts at Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) at @LaurieRobertsaz, on Threads at @LaurieRobertsaz and on BlueSky at @ Subscribe to today. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Phoenix shooting is no fault of the boy with the gun | Opinion
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers take a 2-week break. Arizona does a happy dance
So, after four months of arduous work, the Arizona Legislature is taking a break. It seems the beach is calling, and they must answer. The House is taking two weeks off, returning on May 20. The Senate will return on May 27. This is, of course, an outrage. An affront to every hardworking Arizonan — the people who work five, six or even seven days a week just to get by. People who, I'm confident that when told their leaders taking a few weeks off, will rise up with one voice and ask: What will it take to get them to stay away? It's not like this Legislature has accomplished much, other than beating up on Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs virtually every day and patting themselves on the back for passing bills that will go nowhere. And, oh yeah, scheming to cut care for disabled children and trampling the constitutional rights of Scottsdale voters. Protecting the state's water supply? Nope. Passing a plan to boost the supply of houses people can afford to buy without selling all their internal organs? Uh-uh. Demanding better oversight of the state's runaway Empowerment Scholarship Account program? Be serious. Proposing a workable plan to ask voters for an extension of the Proposition 123 education funding that runs dry on June 30? They've hinted about holding hostage that $300 million in public school funding unless voters agree to a constitutional guarantee for ESAs. Yeah, no. After all that statesmanship, it seems our leaders are just too exhausted to stick around and do the one thing they actually are required to do. To pass a balanced budget, that is. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs proposed her 2025-2026 budget on Jan. 17. Republican legislators? Nope. Opinion: What does Hobbs have against transparency? Once upon a time, the Legislature proposed a budget then held detailed hearings, allowing the public a voice in how our money is spent. Sure, was a time suck, but it was also good governance. These days, a few legislative leaders knock out a plan in private, then present it to the governor. By the time it gets to rank-and-file legislators, it's basically take it or leave it, and you have three minutes to decide. The public, meanwhile, has no role. So, now our exhausted leaders are headed off to vacay and other than the Governor's Office, which called the late-session vacation 'shameful,' I'm wondering … Will anybody even notice that they're gone? Reach Roberts at Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) at @LaurieRobertsaz, on Threads at @LaurieRobertsaz and on BlueSky at @ Like this column? Get more opinions in your email inbox by signing up for our free opinions newsletter, which publishes Monday through Friday. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona Legislature goes on vacation? That's ... fantastic! | Opinion
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Hobbs vetoes GOP bill ‘weaponizing' legislative contempt authority
Image via Getty Images The Arizona Legislature won't be able to sic county sheriff's offices on people who ignore their subpoenas and people who testify at the state Capitol won't face felony charges if they lie, after Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill that GOP lawmakers sent her last month. The measure would have delegated the power to hold a person in contempt to individual legislators — the Senate president, speaker of the House of Representatives or a committee chairman — instead of requiring a vote by the full chamber. It also would have required every person who testifies in front of a legislative committee to do so under the penalty of perjury, along with it the prospect of a class four felony and at least two years in prison. 'The bill weaponizes the power of the Legislature in a way that could be used to intimidate Arizonans,' Hobbs wrote in her veto letter. Additionally, the governor said, the power to hold someone in contempt 'is best left to be determined' by the full legislative chambers and not any single legislator. In 2021, Republicans in the Arizona Senate failed in a vote of 15-15 to find the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in contempt for refusing to comply with wide-ranging subpoenas for election equipment and materials to be used in the Senate's partisan 'audit' of the 2020 presidential election results. One Republican joined with Democrats to block the proposal. The last time that bald-faced lies to a legislative committee resulted in significant consequences was in 2023, when then Rep. Liz Harris, a Chandler Republican, was ousted from her seat in a bipartisan vote for lying about her intent when she invited a woman to testify in front of a joint elections committee, knowing she planned to spread wild conspiracy theories. The woman claimed that various state and local officials from both parties were involved in a housing deed money laundering scheme involving a Mexican drug cartel and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The vetoed bill, House Bill 2824, passed both the House and the Senate along party lines with only Republicans in favor. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
