Landi v. Arkules

835 P.2d 458 (1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D discovered the estate of Roi Landi Yelverton (Yelverton), who had apparently died leaving no known heirs. The search was done for an Illinois heir-locating business, Moorehead & Associates, operated by D's sister, Nancy Moorehead (Moorehead). D wanted to locate the missing heirs and establish a claim against the estate in return for a share of the estate. D eventually entered into agreements with three potential heirs of the estate. Bernard Arkules, a licensed Arizona attorney and the father of both David Arkules and Nancy Moorehead, then represented these potential heirs in the Yelverton probate proceedings. An assistant attorney general informed Bernard of the existence of an heir with claims superior to those of D's clients. D got this information and located P, the son of Yelverton, in New York. On March 25, 1988, D and Landi executed an agreement in which Landi appointed Moorehead 'to do all things necessary to obtain the inheritance.' The agreement further provided that Moorehead would retain an attorney and pay the expenses for researching and proving the validity of P's claim of inheritance, including attorney's fees. P assigned to Moorehead forty percent of any inheritance that P might receive. P hired an attorney who stated that Bernard was not authorized to act on P's behalf and that the agreement P had signed was unenforceable. P filed suit to have the agreement declared void and unenforceable or, in the alternative, to have the agreement reformed to establish a fair and equitable fee. P claimed the fee was for an excess amount which was limited by law to 30%, D and the other parties do not have an Arizona private investigator license; and there was a failure of consideration. The judge found that the agreement violated Arizona law, and declared the agreement rescinded and unenforceable. He ruled that Moorehead could not enforce the agreement because she did not have an Arizona private investigator's license and that the agreement was illegal and void ab initio as against public policy. Ds then filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the Arizona Department of Public Safety had recently granted Moorehead and D licenses as private investigators. It was denied. Ds appealed.