The $2.3 Million Jurisdictional Ghost
How Bryan Eastin Killed the Corporate Veil and Ignored the ULLCA
The Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (ULLCA)—the law in 20 states—was designed to create a clear line between an individual and a business. But in the case of the Casavelli property, attorney Bryan Eastin and the Maricopa County Superior Court decided that the law was an obstacle to be bypassed.
This report exposes the jurisdictional hole that makes the entire Casavelli judgment void. It targets the “Legal Sophistry” used by attorney Bryan Eastin to bypass the corporate veil and the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (ULLCA).
The Standing Defect: Rule 17(a)
Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), every action must be prosecuted in the name of the Real Party in Interest.
The Fact: The claims involved in this litigation belonged to an LLC.
The Law: Under the ULLCA, the members (the Johanson’s) cannot sue in their personal capacity for claims belonging to the entity.
The Violation: The court allowed Donna and Gary Johanson to sue as individuals. By doing so, the court lost Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
The “Standing” Fraud: Who is the Real Party?
Under the law, an LLC is a separate legal “person.” If an LLC is harmed, the LLC must sue. In this case, the Johanson’s were merely members of an LLC, yet they sued—and were awarded millions—as individuals.
To bypass this legal wall, Bryan Eastin produced a document titled “Irrevocable Assignment of Claim.” This document claimed the LLC assigned its interest in the lawsuit to the Johansons in their “Personal Capacity.”
There is one major problem: Under the ULLCA, this is legally impossible.
The Law: A.R.S. § 29-3502 (A)(3)
Arizona law is clear. A transfer of interest in an LLC:
“(a) Does not entitle the transferee to participate in the management or conduct of the company’s activities and affairs.”
This means the assignment is void. You cannot simply “transfer” the right to sue from a company to yourself personally to bypass the rules of standing.
Section 502 of the ULLCA (2006) mirrors this exact language.
The 19-State Precedent
Arizona is not alone. This betrayal of business law affects 19 other states Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont and Washington that follow the ULLCA. By allowing this case to proceed, the Arizona court has set a dangerous precedent: Your LLC no longer protects you. If a lawyer like Eastin can “assign” claims at will, your asset protection is a lie.
The Fraudulent Trust
To complicate the deception, the Johansons and Eastin utilized an obsolete, out-of-state trust from Chicago dated 1999. Despite having an updated 2006 Trust, they chose the fraudulent path. Even if the 2006 Trust had been used, the law still forbids the transfer of interest to individuals for the purpose of personal litigation.
Conclusion: Void Ab Initio
This is a Subject Matter Jurisdiction defect. Without a proper plaintiff (the Real Party in Interest), the court had no constitutional power to hear the case.
Therefore, every order signed in this case is Void Ab Initio—void from the beginning.
“If you own an LLC in Arizona, the courts are allowing lawyers to sue YOU as Agents or members personally, ignoring the very laws they swore to uphold. We are no longer governed by law; we are governed by whoever has the best Xerox machine.”
The $2.3 Million Void Judgment
When a court proceeds without a proper plaintiff, the resulting judgment isn’t just “wrong”—it is VOID. Yet, the Arizona judiciary handed down a $2.3 million judgment to parties who had no legal standing to receive it.
This isn’t just a “legal error.” It is a Jurisdictional Ghost. It is a judgment that exists on paper but is dead in the eyes of the Constitution.
Southern Quill’s Investigative Series brings you the latest news updates to keep you informed.
Be First to Comment