Send us a text

A forged deed, a ticking clock, and a court that says the fix belongs to lawmakers—this conversation goes deep into how Arizona’s property laws shape real lives. We walk through Dominguez v. Dominguez, where a recorded deed alleged to be forged collided with a five‑year statute tied to property tax payments. The result is unsettling: an elderly homeowner can lose title if fraud isn’t challenged in time. The concurrence even warns that this reading could become a blueprint for deed thieves. We unpack why the justices still chose restraint, applying the statute as written and pointing the finger at the legislature to close the gap.

Then we pivot to Aroca v. Tang Investment, where the court extinguished a deed of trust after the limitations period on the underlying debt expired, rejecting the idea that liens can linger forever. If a lender sleeps on its rights, the lien goes too. That may sting in post‑crash scenarios and for second liens, but it brings certainty to chains of title and aligns with broader policy around timely enforcement. Together, these cases show a consistent philosophy: courts interpret law; lawmakers set policy. If the rules enable deed fraud or crush lenders, the remedy is legislative.

We share practical steps you can take now. Homeowners and families can set up county title alerts, keep tight control of original documents, watch tax bills, and get counsel at the first hint of title activity. Lenders can audit dormant notes, calendar deadlines, and streamline enforcement so claims don’t die on the vine. And for those who want change, the path is civic, not judicial: advocate for a discovery‑rule fix to forged deeds, stronger notary standards, and better recording notice.

If you care about protecting homes, cleaning up title, and keeping courts in their lane, this one’s for you. Subscribe, share with someone who owns property in Arizona, and leave a review telling us which outcome you’d change and why.

Send us a text

A viral kiss cam, a CEO resignation, and a very public reminder: office romance isn’t rare - and it’s not harmless when power, pay, and promotions are on the line. We dive into the real legal and cultural risks with employment attorney David Weisman, separating sensational headlines from practical steps every company can take today.

We walk through why the riskiest relationships are supervisor–subordinate pairings, how undisclosed romances turn into conflicts of interest, and why “consensual” can change the moment a breakup happens. From the McDonald’s and retail leadership cases to everyday teams in hospitals and service industries, we unpack how favoritism—real or perceived—triggers complaints, erodes morale, and pushes good people out. David explains the role of a clear fraternization policy, what a consensual relationship agreement (aka love contract) actually does, and the nonnegotiable move to end reporting relationships when dating occurs.

Policy without practice is a liability. That’s why we dig into scenario-based training that sets boundaries employees can remember: one respectful ask, no means no, and never across power lines. We cover documentation, graduated discipline, and fast, fair investigations that protect people and the business. If you lead a team, work in HR, or just want a healthier workplace, you’ll leave with a playbook to handle relationships transparently, reduce risk, and keep trust intact.

If this conversation helped you, follow the show, share it with your team, and leave a quick review so more listeners can find it. Got a thorny workplace question you want us to tackle next? Send it to producer at evenlegal.com.

Send us a text

A cousin-to-cousin loan sounds simple—until the judgment crosses an ocean. We walk through a striking case where a Nigerian court entered a money judgment and an Arizona court recognized it, revealing how comity, reciprocity, and due process shape whether foreign creditors can collect in the United States. With commercial litigator Marshall Hunt, we unpack the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, Arizona’s added reciprocity requirement, and the practical tests courts use to decide if a foreign judgment deserves respect.

We break down what “due process” really means in cross-border disputes: proper notice, a real chance to respond, and a court with legitimate authority over the parties. You’ll hear how service by email can satisfy legal standards, how personal jurisdiction turns on purposeful contacts and the place of the transaction, and why judgments for taxes, penalties, or family matters usually won’t be recognized. Along the way, we compare U.S. and Nigerian procedures, highlight why Arizona diverges from the modern trend, and show how Rule 44.1 lets courts consider expert affidavits to understand foreign law.

For founders, in-house counsel, and dealmakers, the stakes are real. Recognition rules influence contract drafting, venue and governing law clauses, and enforcement strategy when deals go south. Respecting competent foreign judgments saves time, reduces costs, and avoids conflicting rulings, while reciprocity helps U.S. businesses receive fair treatment abroad. If you move money, goods, or services across borders, this conversation gives you the tools to plan smarter: document contacts, choose enforceable forums, define service methods, and know the defenses that actually work.

Enjoyed the conversation? Follow the show, share it with a colleague who handles international deals, and leave a quick review to help others find us. Your questions and stories power future episodes—send them our way and join the dialogue.