Arizona Business Legal Questions

To frame this question in a different way, imagine that the statutory date for redemption of your pawned item has passed and the pawn shop refuses your late tender, without giving a reason. I think you would agree that they are absolutely entitled to refuse your late tender and the statute gives them the right to retain the item once the redemption period has expired. Now change the facts just a bit and imagine that the moon is blue and they refuse your late tender because the moon is blue. If they are privileged to refuse your late tender for no reason at all, why would they not be privileged to refuse to take your money because the moon is blue? The point here is that the statute gives them the absolute right to refuse your late tender. They may refuse it for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.... Read Answer

Your question does not contain enough information to provide you with a response. What do they want to change, and what is their excuse/explanation for why they are entitled to do that? If you entered into a "spot delivery" contract (you might want to Google that term), you may see your issue there.... Read Answer

The answer is "it depends." If both parties are liable on the debt, the fact that the husband was directed to pay the debt in connection with a divorce will not negate the wife's liability; rather, it will merely give her a claim over against the husband that he reimburse her for any amounts that she has had to pay.... Read Answer

As a general matter, an employer who offers a tax-qualified plan to employees needs to offer them on a non-discriminatory basis. However, there are many exceptions to covering all employees. For example, certain kinds of plans need ony be offered to employees of a particular class. Also, an employer may reimburse any employee for the cost of the employee's own personal plan. The exposure is to the employer for the possible loss of the tax deduction for premiums paid for a plan that turns out not to be tax-qualified. An employee who is not covered will generally not have the right to insist that he or she be covered.... Read Answer

There are two problems with your inquiry. First, and most importantly, 501(c)(3) organizations do not have "owners." Second, if you "belong" to a 501(c)(3), it may be a membership organization that grants you certain rights as a member, or you may be misstating your relationship with the organization and may simply be a customer. In any event, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary (or a provision in the organization's organizing documents granting you certain rights as a member), a non-profit organization may generally refuse to sell to anyone.  ... Read Answer

“Disposable earnings” are what is left to you after your employer withholds money for federal and state income and payroll taxes. It does not include deductions for family insurance coverage, creditunion payments, or contributions to a pension plan or IRA, etc. Federal law limits how much of your disposable earnings can be garnished. In most cases, the maximum amount that may be garnished is the lesser of: 1) 25% of your “disposable earnings” or 2) the amount by which disposable earnings exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage for each week covered in the pay period. If the debt is for child support, instead of 25% (i.e, a 75% "exemption"), the percentage may be as high as 65% (i.e., a 35% "exemption").... Read Answer

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The fact that you have a legal right to do something does not mean that no one will sue you or that you will not be forced to spend thousands of dollars out of your own pocket to defend yourself. Federal labor laws give you the right to picket your employer. However, it does not appear that your current employer owes you any money, so there is an inherently extortive element to your picketing -- you are demanding that your current employer pay you wages owned by someone else. It is probably legal for you to do that. Is that the best way to accomplish your objective?... Read Answer

Generally speaking, training programs and similar activities need not be counted as working time if the following four criteria are met: (a) Attendance is outside of the employee's regular working hours; (b) Attendance is in fact voluntary; (c) The course, lecture, or meeting is not directly related to the employee's job; and (d) The employee does not perform any productive work during such attendance. Your ex-husband has a decent claim that he meets all four of these criteria, since your daughter has no regular job or duties.... Read Answer

Used personal items are unlikely to have a material financial value, and thus the value of the legally recognized damages you have suffered may be insufficient to warrant pursuit of a lawsuit on an economic basis. Moreover, the government subdivision that operates the school system may be immune from certain kinds of legal actions. Have you considered making a claim under your homeowners' insurance policy? Alternatively, have you considered a small claims suit?... Read Answer

Your inquiry does not suggest that you have been discriminated against in any legally recognized sense. As a general matter, an employer may promote whomever it wishes, to the exclusion of anyone else, as long as it does not make its decisions on a legally prohibited basis (such as race, religion or national origin). Our legal system prefers to have bosses, rather than judges, decide whether employees are promotable -- bosses have good skills at that and have all the facts readily at their disposal; judges do not. Your facts do not suggest any form of misconduct by your employer for which a legal remedy is available.... Read Answer

This is a classic common-law mechanic's lien situation. As a general matter, if you are in possession of the customer's vehicle and the customer owes you money for work performed on the vehicle, you may retain possession until the customer pays. Your mileage may vary under the specific circumstances of this case. Consult a local attorney.... Read Answer

The facts are not clear from your inquiry. Apparently three people own title to the house, and two of them consented to allow the third to obtain a loan secured by the interest of all three of them in the house -- is that correct? If so, then, if she dies, only her interest in the house will pass as she directs; the other two owners will continue to own it. If that is not correct and the entire ownership rests with one person, then her will will pass the entire interest as she directs.... Read Answer