44 W Monroe

[HX_Guy]

I was wondering about that though...how will they be able to use all the services? Room service? Is someone going to walk a block to bring them food and such? Seems a bit odd.

[HX_Guy]

b]44 Monroe luxury condos nearly ready[/b]
Phoenix Business Journal - by Jan Buchholz Phoenix Business Journal

Jim Poulin/Phoenix Business Journal
Agent Larry Kamins of Keller Southwest, the exclusive broker for 44 Monroe, points out the view from one of the condo project
View Larger
Related News

* Corus Bank sells note to exit troubled property in Sunrise [South Florida]
* House used in 'There's Something About Mary' may be demolished [South Florida]
* Miami Beach's Artécity asks Corus for loan extension [South Florida]
* 'Second-tier' status hinders quest for foreign investment [Phoenix]
* Fennemore attorney blends law experience with heritage [Phoenix]

The tallest residential high-rise in Phoenix is within three weeks of completion.

Deposits have been made on 118 of the 196 luxury condos at 44 Monroe, according to Jon­athon Vento, principal of the project's development company, Grace Communities. Units will be ready for buyers in mid- to late Aug­ust, he said.

Vento is eager to get the word out that the 34-story development at the northeast corner of First Avenue and Monroe Street is not associated with the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing of Mortgages Ltd., which has put several other Grace developments in limbo.

The Phoenix-based commercial real estate lender's chairman and sole shareholder, Scott M. Coles, committed suicide June 2. Soon after that, Grace filed a lawsuit claiming its had been underfunded, forcing Mortgages Ltd. into bankruptcy protection.

The Chapter 11 case, which involves estate heirs, borrowers, investors and Mortgages Ltd. employees, is proceeding through U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

"It is so wrong to paint (44 Monroe) with the brush of Mortgages Ltd.," Vento said. "They don't have anything to do with this project."

Although Mortgages Ltd. provided some early funding on 44 Monroe, the primary financier was Corus Bank. There have been no financial issues with 44 Monroe, Vento said, and sales are strong despite the challenging real estate market.

The project is not without detractors, however. John and Delphine Rigoli filed a lawsuit June 17 against 44 Monroe LLC, claiming their unit was not delivered in May 2008 as promised. They also claim they were misled about the actual number of buyers who had put money down during the nearly three-year construction process, and about discounts offered to other buyers after the Rigolis signed their contract.

In their suit, filed in Arizona Super­ior Court by attorney Keith Hendricks of Phoenix law firm Fennemore Craig PC, the couple claim they paid a $5,000 deposit in April 2005 for a 20th-floor unit priced at $673,000. They continued making deposits totaling $82,000, despite concerns about delays, according to the lawsuit.

The Rigolis claim they are entitled to a complete refund plus attorneys' fees based on the developer's failure to deliver their unit in May, as well as other claims, such as failing to finish amenities in a timely fashion. Those amenities include a swimming pool, spa, recreational area, lounge, wine bar and catering kitchen on the eighth floor. The pool's concrete was poured about two weeks ago, and much of the finishing work still is in queue.

"The pool's not done yet, and the pool's the reason we're not doing closings yet," Vento said, adding that closings are scheduled to start Aug. 15.

He said he was aware of the Rigolis' complaints, but thought a settlement was being worked out.

Hendricks said that is not the case.

"It is true that 44 Monroe LLC made an offer to our clients, but that offer was not acceptable," the attorney said.

Another couple, however, said they are excited about moving into their 32nd-floor condo with views of the McDowell and Superstition mountains.

Dave and Jessica Ferrazzi are trading in a 10-acre property in East Mesa for the urban high-rise life.

"We're making a drastic change, but we feel the location is perfect. We're right by light rail, and we can walk to a basketball or baseball game," Dave Ferrazzi said.

Although he would not disclose the price of their 2,100-square-foot unit, he said he's pleased with everything he has seen so far.

"The quality of construction is great. The soundproofing, the amenities -- it's got everything you want," said Ferrazzi, a retired teacher.

Ground-level space planned for a deli/grocery is not yet ready for occupancy.

Helen Prier, co-owner of Urban Living Properties LLC in Phoenix, toured the property with some of her agents last week.

"I thought it had a lot of pizzazz, but I think their (homeowner) assessments are a little high at 54 cents per square foot. That's at least 10 cents more than other high-rises here," she said.

Still, Prier thinks the project is a good one that will find ready buyers.
Get Connected

44 Monroe: www.44monroe.com

.

[andrewkfromaz]

Sales are strong, eh? Come on, have business ethics fallen so far these days that people can't just honestly say what's going on, or say nothing at all?

Also the people suing got talked into it by a lawyer. The magic words give it away: "plus attorneys' fees"

[CANUC]

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this but this morning the exposed exterior columns of 44 Monroe are getting painted. The initial color looks white but I’m not sure if this is a primer for a final silver color? I say silver because I know some time ago there was a mention of emulating the look of steel.

[HX_Guy]

I noticed yesterday that the underside of the balconies were being painted white...and they looked great!

[Don B.]

Originally Posted by andrewkfromaz

Also the people suing got talked into it by a lawyer. The magic words give it away: "plus attorneys' fees"

Be careful with assumptions here. We aren't privy to their situation, how this attorney came to be involved, or what has transpired. Frankly, it's immaterial at best. In a breach of contract action, attorney's fees are generally recoverable. That's just how the law is in most, if not all, U.S. states. It has little or nothing to do with "being talked into" anything. Fennemore Craig is a big firm and they don't hire idiots. For all we know, there may be a personal relationship or connection between the plaintiffs and that firm. People that can afford to buy these kinds of properties usually aren't schmoes, and they will know people who know people, etc. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The suit is there and it must be dealt with.

I can tell you that from the little that I know about this particular lawsuit (e.g. skimpy facts make for dangerous assessments), I don't understand in contract law the basis for recission (a total cancellation of the contract) based on a slight (and likely irrelevant) delay in delivery. That sort of thing happens all the time in construction projects. Usually, sophisticated developers will protect themselves in the contract by stating delivery is not a time certain. If true, then it is likely that the plaintiffs won't survive a motion for summary judgment. However, I haven't researched this sort of particular case law in Arizona, so there may be more there than I know.

I do remember an Arizona case (rare; Arizona has very little case law compared to most other states because we are so new) from contracts and property class (we read the case in two different casebooks for two different classes) involving Loehmann's Plaza at 32nd Street and Lincoln in the 1970s or 1980s. It involved a de minimis violation of the lease by the tenant, who paid the rent but not all of the taxes that were due. The landlord attempted to call this a material breach under the contract and evict the tenant. The Arizona Court of Appeals said that equity will not support this sort of remedy for a relatively minor violation of the lease. In other words, you can't blow the deal for a minor detail. The more appropriate remedy is to create some sort of scheme for compensation for the delay in payment or delivery, rather than rescind the entire contract and restore the parties to the position they were in before the contract was entered into.

--don

[gymratmanaz]

I have been waqtching them paint the pillars and balconies for a week or so. It is nice to see them working on getting the finishing touches done. I assume they are finishing the floors that are opening. YEA!!!

[Vicelord John]

face it don. half the world thinks you are scum as soon as you start practicing. It's just part of the job.

[PhxPavilion]

It's a widely held assumption for a reason.

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by PhxPavilion

It's a widely held assumption for a reason.

because 1/2 the people in a lawsuit lose?????
It's been my experience that people only hate lawyers when they lose.

[andrewkfromaz]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

because 1/2 the people in a lawsuit lose?????
It's been my experience that people only hate lawyers when they lose.

Much to learn you still have, young padawan.

Background: the construction company I work for has been sued by homeowners' associations, individual homeowners, and so on. The homeowners very rarely actually win anything when the insurance companies involved invariably settle; they're usually convinced to sue by lawyers. I detest the lawyers who do this even though I personally lose nothing as a result of these cases.

I take back what I said about this case, though. There's nothing that says the lawyer(s) involved talked the owners into suing.

It's been proposed, however, that attorney's fees as an award be limited or otherwise restricted. Frivolous lawsuits would decrease quite dramatically if this were to occur.

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by andrewkfromaz

The homeowners very rarely actually win anything when the insurance companies involved invariably settle; they're usually convinced to sue by lawyers.

I'm going to need clarification here. If the company is settling the case how do the clients not win anything?

[Cranetastic]

This is a frivolous and we all know it. What house, condo, apartment construction contract specifies and exact date ofdelivery or else. This is especially true of a 34 floor high rise. Construction delays happen and I guarantee this is stated in their contract. These kind of lawsuit need to be taxed and the people as well as the attorneys filing them fined. We don't have to look into the suit to understand that the logic behind the claim is bogus and there is little evidence to substantiate it. The couple most likely has hit a financial snag in their portfolio forcing them to change their plans and to avoid the $82,000 loss they are attempting to play the blame game. That is a psychological estimate based on the evidence found in the article. I'd say its a pretty good assumption.

[HooverDam]

[QUOTE=Cranetastic;3841025These kind of lawsuit need to be taxed and the people as well as the attorneys filing them fined.[/QUOTE]

As an aside, Id be all for that. Or going to a 'loser pays' system in which, if you file a suit against someone and lose, you must pay their legal fees. Id like to think either of these sorts of systems would help reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits we have in this country.

[Don B.]

^ Then you lock out about 30% of the American population (who are too poor to pay these costs), ensuring that only the rich and middle class with thousands to lose will be able to access the justice system.

Rule 11 sanctions are sufficient deterrent for attorneys filing lawsuits. Rule 11 of the ARCP (Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure) requires that attorneys verify their pleadings that they are well grounded in fact and are warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for excepting same exists. Courts are empowered to assess sanctions against attorneys who violate this provision. It also has been enacted as Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which you can read at www.myazbar.org.

Although there's no study that assesses how frequently this happens, the few cases that are reported ensure that it happens with enough regularity to ensure attorneys adhere to this standard of pleading. See Harris v. Reserve Life Insurance Co. (App. 1988), Precision Components v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter (App. 1993), Taliferro v. Taliferro (App. 1996), and Hmielewski v. Maricopa County (App. 1997), et. al. Remember, only a small number of cases are appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals (e.g. one percent or less), and decisions by trial judges do not appear in trial reporters and thus cannot be cited as precedent.

--don

[nickkoto]

Originally Posted by Don B.

^ Then you lock out about 30% of the American population (who are too poor to pay these costs), ensuring that only the rich and middle class with thousands to lose will be able to access the justice system.

OK, I'll bite.

How could a "loser pays" system lock out 30% of the population? Assuming that they believe they have a legitimate reason for filing a lawsuit, the cost shouldn't concern them too much if they honestly believe they're going to win.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by Don B.

rule 11 stuff

If Rule 11 actually worked then, why do we have so many frivolous lawsuits? Or do you feel we don't have many frivolous lawsuits.

But anyway, we're getting a bit off topic. Has any of the retail in 44 Monroe had any work done to it recently? The last few times Ive been downtown I haven't been able to stop by 44 Monroe or the Summit, Im wondering how long it will be until their retail is filled up and open. It seems to me if they're smart they'd get that stuff open soon, as 'the season' is about to begin.

[andrewkfromaz]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

I'm going to need clarification here. If the company is settling the case how do the clients not win anything?

Sorry for the confusion - what they "win" goes to the lawyers, often they barely get enough money to fix the home.

[PhxPavilion]

Originally Posted by nickkoto

OK, I'll bite.

How could a "loser pays" system lock out 30% of the population? Assuming that they believe they have a legitimate reason for filing a lawsuit, the cost shouldn't concern them too much if they honestly believe they're going to win.

It's not an easy thing fighting corporations and their 20 well paid lawyers.

[BigBuilder]

Re: Sales are strong despite slow economy.

That's good news for Cityscape. It that's true and I believe it is, Cityscape should move ahead with it's phase 2. But it's going to be hard to beat 44 Monroe. That building is amazing!!!