A. The commissioner or any other person may rescind a sale based on fraud only by filing an action in the superior court. An action based on fraud shall be filed within three years after the date of the auction of that property. If the court voids the sale pursuant to this subsection because the buyer has committed fraud, the buyer at that sale shall not receive a refund of the monies paid for the fraudulent sale.
B. A person may rescind a sale based on failure to comply with the enabling act, the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes only by filing an action in the superior court. An action based on the failure to comply with the enabling act, the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes shall be filed within two years after the date of the auction of that property, unless a shorter period of limitations applies. If the court voids the sale pursuant to this subsection, the buyer at that sale shall reconvey the property to the state land department. The department shall refund the money paid thereon to the buyer at that sale, and make compensation to the buyer for the actual value of the improvements placed on the land by the purchaser. The value shall be determined by the department and paid from the general fund.
C. A person who files suit pursuant to this section shall record a notice of lis pendens in the county or counties in which the property is located. Suit shall not proceed to trial unless the court receives a copy of the recorded lis pendens.
D. This section does not apply to actions to protest auctions pursuant to section 37-301.
Notes of Decisions
Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell, 790 P.2d 242 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 37-249. The majority's conclusion that today's decision applies only prospectively from the date of the mandate in Deer Valley does not suspend the operation of this statutory remedy for a void sale, because that issue is not even addressed in the context of this case,…”
City of Sierra Vista v. Babbitt, 633 P.2d 333 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 37-249. In the instant case, the certificate of purchase is void and pursuant to the cited statute, the City of Sierra Vista is entitled to a return of the purchase price and reimbursement for improvements made upon the land after the issuance of the certificate of…”
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Renaissance Homes, 679 P.2d 517 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “§ 37-237: Notice of sales of state lands shall be by advertisement, stating the time, place and terms of the sale and a full description of the land.”
Cracchiolo v. State, 706 P.2d 1219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Instead they were required by A.R.S. § 37-249 and City of Sierra Vista v.”
Cracchiolo v. State, 660 P.2d 494 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “At that point of time in the litigation the city was faced with the loss of its water treatment plant and a resulting health problem. In addition the EPA advised the city that unless it maintained an “adequate interest” in the site the federal grant could be annulled.”
Waddell v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 873 P.2d 646 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 28× “2d 333 (1981), the Arizona Supreme Court expressly held that a claim for reimbursement pursuant to A.R.S. § 37-249 for payments and improvements made on a void purchase of school trust land must first be considered by the Arizona State Land Department.”
Chicago Title Ins. v. Renaissance Homes, Ltd., 679 P.2d 517 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “§ 37-237: Notice of sales of state lands shall be by advertisement, stating the time, place and terms of the sale and a full description of the land____ A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.