06/14/2012 — LC2012000317 M, L L C, A A 06/14/2012 HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/18/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2012-000317-001 DT
06/14/2012
Docket Code 094
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN
T. Nosker
Deputy
A A M, L L C
BRANDON A HALE
v.
BOARD OF LEGAL DOCUMENT PREPARERS
(001)
LES KRAMBEAL (001)
CHARLES A GRUBE
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
HEARING/
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
Courtroom ECB-814
9:08 a.m. This is the time set for Order to Show Cause Hearing. Plaintiff is represented
by counsel, Brandon A. Hale. Defendant, Board of Legal Document Preparers, is represented by
counsel, Charles A. Grube. Board representative, Linda Crow, is present.
Court reporter, Lisa Bradley, is present.
Court and counsel discuss status and scheduling of the case.
IT IS ORDERED the Response to Plaintiff’s Application shall be filed by July 6, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Reply shall be filed by July 26, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting an Oral Argument on August 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.
(60 minutes) in this division.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2012-000317-001 DT
06/14/2012
Docket Code 094
Form L000
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
Oral argument shall not exceed 30 minutes for each side. If extended oral argument is
necessary, counsel must so advise the Court no later than four (4) court days prior to the date
set for hearing so that oral argument can be rescheduled.
Any motion or stipulation for continuance must be filed with the Court no later than four
(4) court days prior to the date set for hearing. After that date, no continuances will be granted
except for extraordinary circumstances.
9:20 a.m. Matter concludes.
Please Note: Judge Brain’s division will be moving to the following address for all
hearings on or after June 25, 2012. This will be an FTR division. Any requests for a court
reporter will need to be made three (3) days prior to a hearing.
JUDGE MARK BRAIN
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 WEST JEFFERSON
4th FLOOR, COURTROOM 413
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-1141 TEL
08/09/2012 — LC2012000317 M, L L C, A A 08/09/2012 HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/20/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2012-000317-001 DT
08/09/2012
Docket Code 020
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN
T. Nosker
Deputy
A A M, L L C
BRANDON A HALE
v.
BOARD OF LEGAL DOCUMENT PREPARERS
(001)
LES KRAMBEAL (001)
CHARLES A GRUBE
RONDA R FISK
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
ORAL ARGUMENT
Courtroom ECB-413
1:31 p.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument. Plaintiff is represented by counsel,
Brandon A. Hale and Ronda R. Fisk. Defendants are represented by counsel, Charles A. Grube.
Defendant representative, Linda Grau, is present.
Court Reporter, Lisa Bradley, is present. A record of the proceedings is also made by
audio and/or videotape.
Court and the parties discuss the status of the case.
Argument is heard on Plaintiff’s Application for Order to Show Cause in a Special
Action.
IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.
2:27 p.m. Hearing concludes.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2012-000317-001 DT
08/09/2012
Docket Code 020
Form L000
Page 2
JUDGE MARK H. BRAIN
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
EAST COURT BUILDING
101 WEST JEFFERSON
4th FLOOR, COURTROOM 413
PHOENIX, AZ 85003
602-372-1141 TEL
08/20/2012 — LC2012000317 M, L L C, A A 08/20/2012 HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
08/21/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2012-000317-001 DT
08/20/2012
Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN
T. Nosker
Deputy
A A M, L L C
BRANDON A HALE
v.
BOARD OF LEGAL DOCUMENT PREPARERS
(001)
LES KRAMBEAL (001)
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
This special action poses a discrete, pure legal question: Can a Legal Document Preparer
sign a lien it prepared on behalf of a homeowners association? Retired Judge Schwartz answered
the question “yes,” but the Board overruled his decision and said “no” in the proceedings below.
Having studied the parties’ papers and arguments, the Court concludes that Judge Schwartz was
correct, and that the Board was wrong.
The analysis is governed by Rule 31, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court, and § 7-208
of the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration. Rule 31(a)(2) defines the practice of law and
includes in that definition things like “preparing any document in any medium intended to affect
or secure legal rights for a specific person or entity,” “representing another in a judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative proceeding, or other formal dispute resolution process such as
arbitration and mediation,” “preparing any document through any medium for filing in any court,
administrative agency or tribunal for a specific person or entity,” and “negotiating legal rights or
responsibilities for a specific person or entity.” Rule 31(b) then prohibits the unauthorized
practice of law, subject to exemptions as set forth in Rule 31(d) (which allow the activities set
forth in § 7-208).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2012-000317-001 DT
08/20/2012
Docket Code 019
Form L000
Page 2
Corporations can only act through their agents, and as a general matter are entitled to
appoint and retain agents as they see fit. The Board has failed to explain how merely signing a
lien to be filed at a recorder can be considered “the practice of law” without rendering virtually
everything of note a corporate agent does “the practice of law.” Merely signing a lien as an
agent of a corporation is not the practice of law, any more than signing a check, a contract, a
deed, or other things which arguably bind the corporation. UPL Advisory Opinion no. 12-01
(March 2012) tacitly admits as much, by noting that a duly authorized agent can sign a lien.1
The Court can find nothing in Rule 31 which prohibits this practice. And, of course, the legal
document preparer rules (in the administrative code) were enacted to allow something that Rule
31 would otherwise preclude (that is, to allow legal document preparers to engage in certain
activities that would be “the practice of law”), and the Court has found no prohibition of the
practice there either. Simply put, it makes no sense that a homeowners association can appoint a
man chosen at random to sign its liens without running afoul of Rule 31, but cannot appoint a
legal document preparer to do the same thing. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim for relief is
GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file an appropriate form of judgment within 10 business days of the date
this minute entry is filed.
1 The Opinion states, “Unless expressly permitted by the Association bylaws and appropriate corporate resolution,
CAM personnel may not sign a document on behalf of the corporate entity.”
10/26/2012 — LC2012000317 M, L L C, A A 10/26/2012 HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
10/29/2012 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2012-000317-001 DT
10/26/2012
Docket Code 049
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARK H. BRAIN
A. Melchert
Deputy
A A M, L L C
BRANDON A HALE
v.
BOARD OF LEGAL DOCUMENT PREPARERS
(001)
LES KRAMBEAL (001)
CHARLES A GRUBE
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has modified and signed the form of judgment on October 24, 2012 and filed
(entered) by the Clerk on October 26, 2012. By way of brief explanation, the Court has modified
the proposed judgment to simply direct the Board to modify its order to conform to the Court’s
ruling, and has stricken plaintiff’s request that the Board refund various moneys. The refunds
sought were not requested in the complaint, and the amounts are outside of the pleadings and
evidence presented to the Court. That said, the Court suspects that certain refunds might be
appropriate in connection with the Board’s modification of its order; if the Board fails to modify
its order appropriately, nothing precludes plaintiff from exercising further legal options.
