material misstatement or false claim in Arizona

2013Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 167 Ariz. 281, 284 , 806 P.2d 870, 873 (1991). ¶ 10 Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-420.A provides that [a] person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is liable to the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property for the sum of not less than five thousand dollars, or for treble th

2013Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 167 Ariz. 281, 284 , 806 P.2d 870, 873 (1991). ¶ 10 Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-420.A provides that [a] person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is liable to the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property for the sum of not less than five thousand dollars, or for treble th

2016P'ship, 228 Ariz. 271, 279-80, ¶ 23 (App. 2011). ¶24 The trial court properly denied Steelman’s claim.

2016P'ship, 228 Ariz. 271, 279-80, ¶ 23 (App. 2011). ¶24 The trial court properly denied Steelman’s claim.

2025“If a statute’s text is clear and unambiguous, it controls unless it results in an absurdity or a constitutional violation.” Id.; see also Stauffer, 233 Ariz. at 27 ¶ 21. ¶11 Section 33-420 states, in relevant part: A. A person purporting to claim . . . a lien or encumbrance against[] real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is 3 BABICKY v. COPPER STATE Decision of the Court forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is liable

2025According to Heshion, “there was certainly some basis and arguable grounds for concluding that” the consolidated case “would have an effect on title to [1881 Preserve’s] real property.” ¶42 A.R.S. § 33-420(A) authorizes an award of damages for the wrongful recording of a lis pendens if the person who recorded it “kn[ew] or ha[d] reason to know that the document [wa]s forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid[.]” The recording party has “reason to know” that the lis pendens is groundless if the party “has knowledge of facts from which a reasonab

2023Therefore, we need not address it. 5 CHUBBUCK v. WHEELER Decision of the Court knows that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid shall be liable to the owner or title holder” for at least $1,000 and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs “if he willfully refuses to release or correct such document of record within twenty days from the date of a written request from the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property.” A.R.S. § 33–420(C). ¶15 In determining whether lis pendens were wrongfully recorded, the court is limited

2013The assignments therefore misstate the undisputed facts. ¶ 31 Section 33-420(A) requires the claimant to show that a person caused a document to be recorded “knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid.” (Emphasis added.) To determine whether misrepresentations in the documents at issue here were material, we apply our traditional definition of materiality from the law of fraud: “A misrepresentation is material if a reasonable person ‘would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in

2013The assignments therefore misstate the undisputed facts. ¶ 31 Section 33-420(A) requires the claimant to show that a person caused a document to be recorded “knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid.” (Emphasis added.) To determine whether misrepresentations in the documents at issue here were material, we apply our traditional definition of materiality from the law of fraud: “A misrepresentation is material if a reasonable person ‘would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in

2004Fund v. Superior Court, 190 Ariz. 371, 374-75 , 948 P.2d 499, 502-03 (App.1997). ¶ 11 Pence contends that Glacy is liable for statutory damages under A.R.S. § 33-420(A), which states that [a] person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is liable to the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property for

2004Fund v. Superior Court, 190 Ariz. 371, 374-75 , 948 P.2d 499, 502-03 (App.1997). ¶ 11 Pence contends that Glacy is liable for statutory damages under A.R.S. § 33-420(A), which states that [a] person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is liable to the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property for