Sky Harbor Hotel Props., LLC v. Patel Props., LLC (In Re Sky Harbor Hotel Props., LLC)

443 P.3d 21, 246 Ariz. 531
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedJune 25, 2019
DocketCV-19-0033-CQ; CV-19-0034-CQ
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 443 P.3d 21 (Sky Harbor Hotel Props., LLC v. Patel Props., LLC (In Re Sky Harbor Hotel Props., LLC)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sky Harbor Hotel Props., LLC v. Patel Props., LLC (In Re Sky Harbor Hotel Props., LLC), 443 P.3d 21, 246 Ariz. 531 (Ark. 2019).

Opinion

CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, opinion of the Court:

¶1 These consolidated cases involve alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. To address these claims, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona certified the following questions to this Court:

1. Does a manager of an Arizona limited liability company ("LLC") owe common law fiduciary duties to the company?

2. Does a member of an Arizona LLC owe common law fiduciary duties to the company?

3. Can an Arizona LLC's operating agreement lawfully limit or eliminate those fiduciary duties?

¶2 We answer the first question in the affirmative. We answer the second question in the affirmative, provided that the member is an agent of the LLC. We answer the third question in the affirmative but note that the operating agreement may not eliminate the implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing.

I.

A.

¶3 Arizona enacted its first limited liability company act ("LLC Act") in 1992. See 1992 Sess. Laws 395 (2d Reg. Sess.). The statutory scheme is codified at A.R.S. § 29-601 et seq. Last year, Arizona's legislature enacted a new Arizona Limited Liability Company Act ("ALLCA") to eventually replace the LLC Act. See 2018 Ariz. Sess. Laws 833 (2d Reg. Sess.) (to be codified at A.R.S. § 29-3101 et seq. ). ALLCA will first apply only to LLCs formed on or after September 1, 2019, but will apply to all LLCs starting September 1, 2020. Id. Thus, to address the certified questions, we analyze only the LLC Act.

¶4 The LLC Act does not expressly impose any fiduciary duties on members or managers. See generally Scott DeWald, James Reynolds & Matthew Engle , Fiduciary Duties and Indemnification , Ariz. Att'y, Mar. 2019, at 18-19 (contrasting the LLC Act with ALLCA, which recognizes fiduciary duties). By statute, however, "the law of agency" applies to the entire LLC Act. See A.R.S. § 29-854(B). We thus apply common law agency principles to answer the certified questions.

¶5 Arizona case law has not addressed these issues directly. This Court has observed that "unlike both corporations and partnerships, LLC members do not owe each other fiduciary duties unless they are expressly included in the LLC operating agreement." Butler Law Firm, PLC v. Higgins , 243 Ariz. 456 , 462 ¶ 23, 410 P.3d 1223 , 1229 (2018). As support for this proposition, Butler cited TM2008 Investments, Inc. v. Procon Capital Corp. , 234 Ariz. 421 , 424-25 ¶ 15, 323 P.3d 704 , 707-08 (App. 2014), which declined to "mechanically apply fiduciary duty principles from the law of closely-held corporations or partnerships to a limited liability company created under Arizona law." TM2008 Investments involved an action for breach of fiduciary duty filed by one member of an LLC against another, and the court of appeals found that the operating agreement itself established certain duties. Id. at 422 ¶ 1, 425-26 ¶¶ 16-17, 323 P.3d at 705, 708-09 . Butler concerned whether an LLC is an "other corporation" for purposes of Arizona's venue statute. 243 Ariz. at 459 ¶ 6, 410 P.3d at 1226 . Neither case considered whether, based on the common law of agency, managers or members owe fiduciary duties to the LLC.

¶6 "Absent controlling authority to the contrary, we generally follow the Restatement when it sets forth sound legal policy." CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC , 236 Ariz. 410 , 414 ¶ 18, 341 P.3d 452 , 456 (2014). Under traditional agency rules, agency is the "fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act." Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1 (Am. Law. Inst. 1958). The agent is the one who acts on behalf of another, the principal. Id. Agents are characterized by their "power to alter the legal relation between the principal and third persons and between the principal and" themselves. Id. § 12. Importantly, "[a]n agent is a fiduciary with respect to matters within the scope of his agency." Id. § 13.

¶7 We have characterized a fiduciary duty as imposing "the obligation of loyalty," Ghiz v. Millett , 71 Ariz. 4 , 8, 222 P.2d 982 (1950), "the obligation of the utmost good faith in their dealings," DeSantis v. Dixon , 72 Ariz. 345 , 350,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
443 P.3d 21, 246 Ariz. 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sky-harbor-hotel-props-llc-v-patel-props-llc-in-re-sky-harbor-hotel-ariz-2019.