“Show Me The Note” Claims Find New Life in Recent Arizona Decision

by Snell & Wilmer

In Steinberger v. McVey, the Arizona Court of Appeals breathed life into what most would label standard “show me the note” claims, in which borrowers challenge their lenders’ authority to foreclose, despite admitting their default. It also found that mortgage servicers can assume tort duties when undertaking to consider borrowers’ requests to reduce mortgage payments. In doing so, it presents an analysis that is contrary to trending authority that is likely to spur unfounded and protracted litigation against mortgage lenders and servicers.

While emphasizing the opinion’s limitations to the specifics of Steinberger’s complaint, this action presents familiar fact patterns. The borrower originated his mortgage loan with one lender, but it was later assigned to a mortgaged-backed security. The borrower (in this case, the borrower’s heir, Steinberger) sought a loan modification to reduce her payments, and supposedly stopped paying because the lender advised she would not qualify “unless she was in default.” The lender noticed a trustee’s sale while it considered her request. Steinberger eventually filed suit against her lender and others, and sought an injunction to bar the trustee’s sale.

While the trial court granted the injunction, it later granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals accepted special action jurisdiction, reversed the trial court’s dismissal on several key grounds and reinstated the injunction. As the Court of Appeals observed, the main remedy sought was a declaration that defendants “lack the authority to foreclose on [Steinberger’s] home.” So long as the trustee’s sale has been enjoined, said the Court of Appeals, borrowers may challenge the authority of their lenders to foreclose by making an affirmative, good faith allegation that the trustee or beneficiary is not the “true” trustee or beneficiary.

In explaining its reasoning, the Court of Appeals assigned significance to factual allegations that are of no consequence. For example, Steinberger alleged that the individual who executed an assignment from MERS (the original deed of trust beneficiary) to IndyMac Federal in 2009 had no authority to do so because he “was employed by IndyMac Federal, not MERS.” Of course, there are no allegations that MERS disclaimed the assignment, and the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “MERS relies on its members to have someone on their own staff become a MERS officer with the authority to sign documents on behalf of MERS.” Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011).

As another example, Steinberger alleged that the notary on the deed of trust assignment “did not personally witness” the signature and rather notarized the document six weeks later. Of course, notaries do not need to witness signatures for them to be valid under Arizona law. Das v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 1658718, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 11, 2012) (“A notary need not actually witness a signature or ask for photo identification for the notarization to be effective.”); Nichols v. Bosco, et al., 2011 WL 814916, at *4 (D. Ariz. Mar. 4, 2011) (“Arizona law does not require a notary to actually witness a signature.”). Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals found that allegations such as these have the capacity to “seriously undermine the validity of the title transfers” if proven true.

The Arizona Supreme Court decided a related issue in Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, holding that “Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to prove its authority or ‘show the note’ before the trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure.” 230 Ariz. 584, 585, 277 P.3d 781, 782 (2012). But the Steinberger court sought to sidestep Hogan, noting that Steinberger affirmatively alleged that defendants lacked authority to conduct a trustee’s sale; Hogan did not.

The Steinberger court also found that loan servicers can be liable to borrowers for negligent performance of an assumed duty, and here found a legally sufficient claim of “negligent administration of the loan modification,” which supposedly “increased the risk that Steinberger would default on her loan and lose her home in foreclosure.” Of course, Steinberger did not allege that her lender promised to modify her loan, only to consider her request. Certainly a loan servicer should not be found to assume tort duties when doing nothing more than promising to consider a borrower’s request to reduce payments.

On the heels of decisions such as Stauffer v. U.S. Bank National Assoc., et al., 233 Ariz. 22, 308 P.3d 1173 (Ct. App. 2013), the Arizona Court of Appeals has again departed from the sound jurisprudence that has developed since the balloon of foreclosure avoidance litigation several years ago. Allegations such as those advanced by Steinberger are largely recycled among the myriad of lawsuits pending in Arizona and elsewhere. Thus, if left to stand, Steinberger has the potential to delay proper foreclosures and unnecessarily consume resources as servicers are forced to task personnel with assisting in defensive litigation rather than focusing on deserving borrowers with loan modification needs.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Snell & Wilmer | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Snell & Wilmer

Snell & Wilmer on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.