Cited by

“Negligent misrepresentation requires a misrepresentation or omission of a fact.” McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona), see also KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins.

The superior court has similarly broad discretion when deciding who is a successful party by considering “the totality of circumstances and the relative success of the litigants.”

McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona)

(holding that a case arose out of contract under § 12-341.01 where a party alleged fraud claims resulting from a breach of contract to loan money).

Commercial losses suffered by a plaintiff when the defendant fails to provide a contracted service are generally recoverable in a breach of contract action as consequential damages, but are unrecoverable in a negligence action because of the economic 9 SZETO, et al. v. APS Opinion of the Court loss doctrine.

2 The superior court awarded fees to both parties under the CC&Rs but noted that the fees it awarded would be the same whether granted under the CC&Rs or § 12-341.01.

(“Negligent misrepresentation requires a misrepresentation or omission of a fact.”).

McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona)

McAlister v. Citibank (Ariz.), a Subsidiary of Citicorp

Our courts have generally declined to recognize any special relationship between a debtor and creditor, (holding bank owed no fiduciary duty to borrower); cf. Stewart v. Phx.

McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona)

¶22 To state a claim for constructive fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a breach of legal or equitable duty which, irrespective of the moral guilt or intent of the party charged,” would be considered “fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others, to violate public or private confidence, or to injure public interests.” McAlister v. Citibank, a Subsidiary of Citicorp

See McAlister v. Citibank (Ariz.), (determining bank owed no fiduciary duty to customer); cf. Stewart v. Phx.

It is well settled “that the relationship between a Bank and an ordinary depositor, absent any special agreement, is that of debtor and creditor.” McAlister v. Citibank (Ariz.), a Subsidiary of Citicorp, (internal quotation marks omitted).

2012) (citation omitted), or consequential damages (Arizona), McAlister v. Citibank (Ariz.), a Subsidiary of Citicorp, (citations omitted), available for breach of contract.

§ 12-2101 (A)(4); see also In re Approximately $50,000.00 In U.S. Currency, ¶ 5 , (construing predecessor statute; noting "final order is one that disposes of the case, leaving no question open for the court’s determination”) (citing McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona), , ).

McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona)

(“Rule 54(b) language does not make the judgment final and appealable” when judgment disposed of some but not all of plaintiff’s legal theories); (trial court improperly included Rule 54(b) language in “order relating to consequential damages” that “merely 19 eliminated a potential remedy while not disposing of a single claim”)

at 355 , 813 P.2d at 720 ; see also Wagenseller at 383 , 710 P.2d at 1038 ; McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona), a Subsidiary of Citicorp, , (a special relationship must exist in order to support a tortious.

at 355, 813 P.2d at 720; see also Wagenseller at 383, 710 P.2d at 1038; McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona), a Subsidiary of Citicorp, P.2d 1253 (App. 1992) (a special relationship must exist in order to support a tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing).

It is true that in some cases, “[w]hen determining the successful party for the purposes of awarding costs, we view the totality of circumstances and the relative success of the litigants.” McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona), , see also Notaros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., , (holding that, based on totality of litigation, trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendants were the successful party).

Co., , McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona), a Subsidiary of Citicorp

Hence, its order was the “final order in the case.” (if, following court’s order, there is “nothing left of the case to dispose of,” order is final and appealable); McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona), , (final order is one that disposes of the case, leaving no question open for the court’s determination).