No, of course not. Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes only prohibit deficiency judgments after a trustee’s sale of a “dwelling”. Under no definition can a vacant lot constitute a “dwelling”. This was the Arizona Supreme...more
It appears that 2014 was a banner year for Arizona law on judgment liens. Indeed, we recently posted about the Lewis v. DeBord decision, which invalidates judgment liens vis-à-vis third-party purchasers if the judgment...more
In 2013, we blogged about the Arizona Court of Appeals’ determination that prospective contractual waivers of “fair market value” hearings are unenforceable as a matter of public policy. The link to our prior blog post is...more
Introduction -
As everyone knows, the enactment of the Statute of Westminster II in 1285 ushered the concept of a “judgment lien” into English law. The statute – for the first time in English legal history –...more
The Arizona Court of Appeals decided on July 22, 2014 that a developer cannot compel a public entity to call its performance bonds to complete infrastructure improvements on a construction project that a prior developer...more
Believe it or not, guaranty contracts mean what they say. If a guarantor agrees to reimburse a lender for misappropriated security deposits, unpaid taxes, and the cost of enforcement, then – not surprisingly – courts will...more
Since a lender must have a valid debt and valid lien to conduct a trustee’s sale, a borrower that allows the foreclosure sale to occur impliedly agrees that the debt and lien are valid. In Madison v. Groseth and BT Capital,...more
5/29/2014
/ Appeals ,
Borrowers ,
Breach of Contract ,
Debt ,
Default ,
Deficiency Judgments ,
Delinquent Borrowers ,
Foreclosure ,
Lenders ,
Liens ,
Mortgages ,
Trustee Sales ,
Trustees
If a lender delays foreclosure allowing years of default interest to accrue such that a guarantor’s obligation increases from $6 million to $12 million, should the guarantor remain on the hook for the full $12 million? In...more
Last Tuesday, April 20, 2014, Arizona’s Governor, Jan Brewer, signed HB 2018 into law. This bill closes a long-standing loophole that allowed commercial homebuilders to take advantage of Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute,...more
Sales in bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. § 363 (called “363 Sales”) are often used to sell property during a bankruptcy case. The 363 Sale process provides an efficient procedure to liquidate estate property and offers...more
Although property obtained by a debtor after filing for bankruptcy is usually safe from creditors, a recent case from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel allowed a Chapter 7 Trustee to sell real property obtained by...more
In Weitz Co., LLC v. Heth, 223 Ariz. 442, 314 P.3d 569 (Ct. App. Nov. 26 2013), the Arizona Court of Appeals held that the plain language of Arizona’s mechanic lien statute, A.R.S. § 33-992(A), does not allow a lender to jump...more
On December 30, 2013, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final rulemaking recognizing the newly amended ASTM standard practice for Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527-13 as...more
As of January 1, 2014, California amended its anti-deficiency statute to stop mortgage lenders from “collecting” from homeowners on post-foreclosure debts. Although the amendments were designed to tackle a purely...more
In First Credit Union v. Courtney, 309 P.3d 929, 669 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 18 (Ct. App. 2013), the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected three creative arguments that A.R.S. § 33-814 protected the guarantors from paying on their...more
If all goes as planned, the Uniform Law Commission will finalize and promulgate a model act dealing with the appointment and powers of commercial real estate receivers at some point in 2015. Last month, the Drafting...more
We finally have an answer to the question of whether parties can contractually waive the right to a “fair market value” hearing under Arizona law – and the answer, according to the Court of Appeals – is “no.” ...more
Arizona anti-deficiency laws do not prohibit a non-purchase money lender from suing on its note after foreclosure by a senior lender. In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Brewer, No. 1CA-CV 12-0383 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 21, 2013...more
In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Riggio, No. 1CA-CV-12-0430 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 4, 2013), the Arizona Court of Appeals held: (i) that the “merger of rights” doctrine does not “merge” a lender’s first and second lien into a...more
In Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic, 662 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 26 (Ct. App. 2013), the Arizona Court of Appeals held that provisions in loan documents purporting to waive the applicability of A.R.S. § 33-814(G) violate Arizona...more
In Independent Mortgage v. Alaburda, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute, A.R.S. § 33-814(G), precluded a lender from suing its borrowers for a deficiency after foreclosing on the...more
Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals determined that under the 2010 Arizona Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, A.R.S. §12-3001, et seq. (the AZ-RUAA), a contractual agreement to arbitrate extends to: (i) arbitration of claims...more
1/18/2013
/ Appeals ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Arbitrators ,
Breach of Contract ,
Construction Contracts ,
Dissolution ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Fraud ,
Limited Liability Company (LLC) ,
Negligent Misrepresentation ,
Non-Parties ,
Partnerships ,
Receivership ,
Revised Uniform Arbitration Act ,
Unjust Enrichment