adverse claim in Arizona

2022Stat-o-matic, 189 Ariz. at 222 ; Sabino, 186 Ariz. at 149 . ¶9 To satisfy the elements of open and notorious, a claimant must show he engaged in conduct that “put the true owner on notice that his land is held under an adverse claim of ownership.” Knapp v. Wise, 122 Ariz. 327, 329 (App. 1979).

2022See Knapp v. Wise, 122 Ariz. 327, 329 (App. 1979) (stating the "question" in adverse-possession cases is whether the "acts of possession" are sufficient to "put the true owner on notice that his land is held under an adverse claim of ownership"). ¶26 The majority notes a factual inconsistency about where the Becks parked their cars (the driveway or the disputed land).

1995E.g., Staley v. Brown, 244 Miss. 825 , 146 So.2d 739, 742 (1962) (“[A] judgment creditor seeking to garnishee funds of a judgment debtor in the bank account of a third person is governed by the adverse claimant statute.”); Phil Grossmayer Co. v. Campbell, 214 Or. 265 , 328 P.2d 320, 325 (1958) (Adverse claimant statute “is applicable in all cases when ‘an adverse claim to a deposit’ is made.”).

1995E.g., Staley v. Brown, 244 Miss. 825 , 146 So.2d 739, 742 (1962) (“[A] judgment creditor seeking to garnishee funds of a judgment debtor in the bank account of a third person is governed by the adverse claimant statute.”); Phil Grossmayer Co. v. Campbell, 214 Or. 265 , 328 P.2d 320, 325 (1958) (Adverse claimant statute “is applicable in all cases when ‘an adverse claim to a deposit’ is made.”).

2012Contested Action ¶ 17 State Farm argues the fee award was improper because the action was not contested once Assyia “made full disclosure of her claim and damages.” We reject such a restrictive view of the proceedings. ¶ 18 “[A] contested action is one in which the defendant has appeared and generally defends against the claims and demands made by the plaintiff.” Morrison v. Shanwick Int’l Corp., 167 Ariz. 39, 46 , 804 P.2d 768, 775 (App.1990); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 361 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “contest” to mean an action taken to “deny an adverse claim or assert a defense to it in a

2012Contested Action ¶ 17 State Farm argues the fee award was improper because the action was not contested once Assyia “made full disclosure of her claim and damages.” We reject such a restrictive view of the proceedings. ¶ 18 “[A] contested action is one in which the defendant has appeared and generally defends against the claims and demands made by the plaintiff.” Morrison v. Shanwick Int’l Corp., 167 Ariz. 39, 46 , 804 P.2d 768, 775 (App.1990); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 361 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “contest” to mean an action taken to “deny an adverse claim or assert a defense to it in a

1996Several courts have held, however, that “where an easement has been created but no occasion has arisen for its use, the owner of the servient tenement may fence the land and this will not be deemed adverse until such time as the need for the right-of-way arises and the owner of the dominant tenement demands that the easement be opened and the servient tenement owner refuses to do so.” Halverson v. Turner, 268 Mont. 168, 175 , 885 P.2d 1285, 1290 (1994).

1996Several courts have held, however, that “where an easement has been created but no occasion has arisen for its use, the owner of the servient tenement may fence the land and this will not be deemed adverse until such time as the need for the right-of-way arises and the owner of the dominant tenement demands that the easement be opened and the servient tenement owner refuses to do so.” Halverson v. Turner, 268 Mont. 168, 175 , 885 P.2d 1285, 1290 (1994).

1995In Burch & Cracchiolo, PA. v. Pugliani, 144 Ariz. 281 , 697 P.2d 674 (1985), the Arizona Supreme Court held that the mere filing of a complaint alleging a conflicting claim to prevent the disbursal of a trust is “too much remedy for too little wrong.” 144 Ariz. at 288, 697 P.2d at 681.

1995In Burch & Cracchiolo, PA. v. Pugliani, 144 Ariz. 281 , 697 P.2d 674 (1985), the Arizona Supreme Court held that the mere filing of a complaint alleging a conflicting claim to prevent the disbursal of a trust is “too much remedy for too little wrong.” 144 Ariz. at 288, 697 P.2d at 681.

1995E.g., Staley v. Brown, 244 Miss. 825 , 146 So.2d 739, 742 (1962) (“[A] judgment creditor seeking to garnishee funds of a judgment debtor in the bank account of a third person is governed by the adverse claimant statute.”); Phil Grossmayer Co. v. Campbell, 214 Or. 265 , 328 P.2d 320, 325 (1958) (Adverse claimant statute “is applicable in all cases when ‘an adverse claim to a deposit’ is made.”).

1995E.g., Staley v. Brown, 244 Miss. 825 , 146 So.2d 739, 742 (1962) (“[A] judgment creditor seeking to garnishee funds of a judgment debtor in the bank account of a third person is governed by the adverse claimant statute.”); Phil Grossmayer Co. v. Campbell, 214 Or. 265 , 328 P.2d 320, 325 (1958) (Adverse claimant statute “is applicable in all cases when ‘an adverse claim to a deposit’ is made.”).

1986See, e.g., McGuire v. Wallis, 231 Ark. 506 , 330 S.W.2d 714 (1960); Smith v. Smith, 95 Idaho 477 , 511 P.2d 294 (1973); Apodaca v. Hernandez, 61 N.M. 449 , 302 P.2d 177 (1956); Norgong v. Whitehead, 225 Minn. 379 , 31 N.W.2d 267 (1948).

1986See, e.g., McGuire v. Wallis, 231 Ark. 506 , 330 S.W.2d 714 (1960); Smith v. Smith, 95 Idaho 477 , 511 P.2d 294 (1973); Apodaca v. Hernandez, 61 N.M. 449 , 302 P.2d 177 (1956); Norgong v. Whitehead, 225 Minn. 379 , 31 N.W.2d 267 (1948).

1985Cir.1972). “[W]e hold that when a ... banking institution receives notice of an adverse claim to a deposit, said institution may freeze that deposit for a brief, reasonable period of time so as to permit the filing of litigation, either by interpleader or other other appropriate civil litigation, to resolve the adverse claims.” Stevenson v. First National Bank of Washington, 395 A.2d 21, 24 (D.C.App.1978).

1985It may or may not, as it sees fit in the circumstance.” See also Domain Industries, supra (when plaintiff’s demand for bank account was not accompanied by a court order, the defendant bank was “justified in refusing to hon- or the request”); Ginsberg v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 55 Misc.2d 1052, 1054 , 287 N.Y.S.2d 818, 821 (1968) (the words of the statute “explicitly state that a trust company or savings bank need not give any effect to a notice of an adverse claimant” unless ordered by a court to do so); Sanders v. First National Bank and Trust Co., 292 P.2d 160, 162 (Okla.1955) (“the

1985It may or may not, as it sees fit in the circumstance.” See also Domain Industries, supra (when plaintiff’s demand for bank account was not accompanied by a court order, the defendant bank was “justified in refusing to hon- or the request”); Ginsberg v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 55 Misc.2d 1052, 1054 , 287 N.Y.S.2d 818, 821 (1968) (the words of the statute “explicitly state that a trust company or savings bank need not give any effect to a notice of an adverse claimant” unless ordered by a court to do so); Sanders v. First National Bank and Trust Co., 292 P.2d 160, 162 (Okla.1955) (“the

1985It may or may not, as it sees fit in the circumstance.” See also Domain Industries, supra (when plaintiff’s demand for bank account was not accompanied by a court order, the defendant bank was “justified in refusing to hon- or the request”); Ginsberg v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 55 Misc.2d 1052, 1054 , 287 N.Y.S.2d 818, 821 (1968) (the words of the statute “explicitly state that a trust company or savings bank need not give any effect to a notice of an adverse claimant” unless ordered by a court to do so); Sanders v. First National Bank and Trust Co., 292 P.2d 160, 162 (Okla.1955) (“the