This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D is engaged in the business of transferring money, whether by cashing checks or making short-term loans. D entered into a commercial five-year lease that contained a provision that limited D's primary use of the premises to short-term loans and check cashing, and its ancillary use to money transfers. D was a 'payday loan' company pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ('A.R.S.') sections 6-1251 to -1263. That payday statute expired on July 1, 2010, by its sunset provision. When the authorizing statute expired, D vacated the premises. P demanded rent due through the end of the lease term, but D refused and claimed the lease had terminated 'by operation of Arizona law.' P sued D and D claimed frustration of purpose. The court ruled for P and entered judgment awarding P $144,899.06 in damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.