Tag: arizona supreme court

Posted on

Holden Willits LLC – ARC Coatings v Mcallister Company – Mohave Superior Court Arizona

Now with Holden Willits LLC - Roger Brodman

Holden Willits LLC – ARC Coatings v Mcallister Company – Mohave Superior Court Arizona:

On August 13, 2024, ARC and McAllister entered into an agreement (the “Contract”) whereby ARC agreed to perform work for McAllister at 2446 La Mancha, Fort Mohave, AZ 86426 (the “Project”). The Project is located on a parcel of land located in Mohave County, Arizona legally described in Exhibit 1 hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Subject Property™). Pursuant to the Contract, ARC agreed to install epoxy flooring; grind and seal the floor; and make saw cuts (the “Work™) in exchange for payment of $22,830.00.

On August 14, 2024, ARC and McAllister agreed that ARC would also apply caulking which increased the contract amount to $23,495.00 (the “Contract Amount”). On or about August 19, 2024, ARC commenced the Work. On or about September 3, 2024, ARC completed the Work. On September 27, 2024, ARC caused to be recorded a mechanic’s and material men’s lien against the Subject Property (the “Lien”). The Lien was recorded at document no. 2024048344 in the official records of Mohave County, Arizona. On March 25, 2025, ARC caused to be recorded a partial release of the Lien (the “Partial Release™). The Partial Release was recorded at document no. 2025014655 in the official records of Mohave County, Arizona. A true and correct copy of the Partial Release is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by this reference.

On September 27, 2024, after ARC furnished labor, materials, and tools to McAllister and within 120 days of “completion” (as that term is defined in A.R.S. § 33- 993(C)) of the improvements on the Subject Property, ARC caused the Lien (Exhibit 2) to be recorded in the total principal amount of $12,730.00. ARC has performed all conditions precedent to impress and secure a good and valid lien against the Subject Property under the provisions of Arizona’s lien statutes in favor of ARC and against the Subject Property. Furthermore, ARC has properly perfected, impressed and secured the Lien against the Subject Property for labor, materials, and tools provided to McAllister by, among other things, recording the Lien and timely serving a copy on the owners or reputed owners as required by law.(Holden Willits LLC)

Holden Willits - ARC Coatings v Mcallister Company - Mohave Superior Court Arizona

Download PDF

Posted on

Corrupt Brodman unseals records without offering the opposing party a hearing as required by local Rule 2.20(c)

Rule 2.20. Unsealing Court Records
Currentness
a. Access. Court records that are sealed may be examined by judicial officers. Access by the public to sealed records will only be allowed after entry of a court order in accordance with this rule.
b. Motion; Service. A sealed court record shall be unsealed only upon stipulation of all the parties, upon the court’s own motion, or upon a motion filed by a named party or another person. A motion to unseal a court record must be served on all parties to the action in accordance with the applicable rules of service for the case type. If the movant cannot locate a party for service after making a good faith effort to do so, the movant may file an affidavit setting forth the efforts to locate the party and requesting that the court waive the service requirements of this rule. The court may waive the service requirement if it finds that further good faith efforts to locate the party are not likely to be successful.
c. Hearing. Any party opposing the motion shall appear and show cause why the motion should not be granted. The responding party must show that compelling circumstances continue to exist or that other grounds provide a sufficient legal or factual basis for keeping the record sealed.

Posted on

Judge Brodman loses the pro per Defendant’s exhibits for evidentiary hearing

Now with Holden Willits LLC - Roger Brodman

Judge Brodman loses the pro per Defendant’s exhibits for evidentiary hearing. Judge Brodman loses the pro per Defendant’s exhibits for evidentiary hearing. Naturally, the plaintiff’s exhibits were not lost just the pro per Defendant’s. The pro per Defendant did not receive as much time to present his case as a result of the Judge losing the hand-delivered exhibits. The Defendant was severely prejudiced as a result.