Cited by

See Westbrook, __ Ariz. at __, ¶ 26, 576 P.3d at 711 (holding that LLC of which wife was sole member was a necessary party to marital dissolution action, and noting that because an LLC is distinct from its members, wife could not be treated “as the owner of [the LLC’s] property”); cf. Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶ 22 (App. 2010) (recognizing that shareholders “generally .

Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶¶ 10-11 (App. 2010).

¶42 This court has held a fraudulent transfer claim is statutory, under the UFTA, meaning the “fundamental nature of the claim is one that does not arise out of contract.” Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶ 20 (App. 2010); accord Kennedy v. Linda Brock Auto.

Although we may not award fees whenever a case simply involves a contract, Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶ 11 (App. 2010), we “look to the fundamental nature of the action” to determine whether an action arises out of contract.

this duty is based not on contract, but on tort law.”), and Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶¶ 18–19 (App. 2010) (concluding that fiduciary obligations by corporate directors can apply without “regard to the terms in the underlying contracts”).

See Dooley v. O’Brien, -54, ¶¶ 14-18 (App. 2010).

¶ 21 (App. 2010) ("Parties to a fiduciary relationship have a right to an accounting.

See, 154-55, ¶¶ 2, 21-22 (App. 2010) (holding that a director and minority shareholder in closely held company had a (App. 2001) (noting closely held companies have (1) few shareholders, usually "two or three," (2) who are acquainted with each other, (3) are active in the business, and (4) there is no market for t

See Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶ 20 (App. 2010).

Cf. Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶ 20 (App. 2010) (noting that Arizona’s UFTA “displaced similar common law actions”).

Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶ 9 (App. 2010).

See Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (quoting 1 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the current version of rules and statutes.

Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶ 9 (App. 2010).

See Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶ 16 (App. 2010).

See Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D, (Legal malpractice claims do not arise out of contract for purposes of § 12-341.01.); Dooley v. O’Brien, ¶ 18, (Actions to enforce fiduciary duties created by law do not arise out of contract for purposes of § 12-341.01).

Dooley v. O’Brien, , 152 n. 2, ¶ 8, , 589 n. 2 (App.2010) (citing Ariz. R. Civ.