Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Continental Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLCgreen2 sentences2018The replacement doctrine “allows a senior lender that discharges its mortgage of record and records a replacement mortgage to keep its priority as against the holder of an intervening interest in the property.” Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utilities, LLC, 227 Ariz. 382 , 387 ¶ 17 (App. 2011) (emphasis added). 2013See Cont’l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, 227 Ariz. 382, 385, ¶ 8 , 258 P.3d 200, 203 (App.2011). ¶ 11 Under the doctrine of replacement, “if a senior mortgage is released of record and, as part of the same transaction, is replaced with a new mortgage, the latter mortgage retains the same priority as its predecessor.” Restatement (Third) of Property § 7.3(a) (1997). | 3 | 4 |
Ramirez v. Health Partnersgreen2 sentences2011In the absence of controlling statutory or ease authority, Arizona courts generally follow the Restatement of the Law on a particular subject, provided its application “is logical, furthers the interests of justice, is consistent with Arizona law and policy, and has been generally acknowledged elsewhere.” Ramirez v. Health Partners of S. Ariz., 193 Ariz. 325, ¶ 26 , 972 P.2d 658, 665 (App.1998). ¶ 16 For the resolution of priority disputes involving same-lender mortgage refinancing, we refer to § 7.3 of the Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) (1997), titled “Replacement And Modificatio 2011In the absence of controlling statutory or ease authority, Arizona courts generally follow the Restatement of the Law on a particular subject, provided its application “is logical, furthers the interests of justice, is consistent with Arizona law and policy, and has been generally acknowledged elsewhere.” Ramirez v. Health Partners of S. Ariz., 193 Ariz. 325, ¶ 26 , 972 P.2d 658, 665 (App.1998). ¶ 16 For the resolution of priority disputes involving same-lender mortgage refinancing, we refer to § 7.3 of the Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) (1997), titled “Replacement And Modificatio | 2 | 2 |
Weitz Co. v. Hethgreen2 sentences2017This court has held that “the doctrine of equitable subrogation allows a subsequent lender who applies funds to a primary and superior encumbrance to be substituted in the priority position of the primary lienholder.” BAC Home Loans, 230 Ariz. at 590, ¶ 6 , 277 P.3d 784 ; see also Mosher v. Conway, 45 Ariz. 463, 472 , 46 P.2d 110 (1935) (“The general rule is that a person having an interest in property who pays off an encumbrance in order to protect his interest is subrogated to the rights and limitations of the person paid.”). ¶ 17 As our supreme court has explained, however, “[ejquitable sub 2017This court has held that “the doctrine of equitable subrogation allows a subsequent lender who applies funds to a primary and superior encumbrance to be substituted in the priority position of the primary lienholder.” BAC Home Loans, 230 Ariz. at 590, ¶ 6 , 277 P.3d 784 ; see also Mosher v. Conway, 45 Ariz. 463, 472 , 46 P.2d 110 (1935) (“The general rule is that a person having an interest in property who pays off an encumbrance in order to protect his interest is subrogated to the rights and limitations of the person paid.”). ¶ 17 As our supreme court has explained, however, “[ejquitable sub | 1 | 1 |
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Semper Investments L.L.C.green2 sentences2017This court has held that “the doctrine of equitable subrogation allows a subsequent lender who applies funds to a primary and superior encumbrance to be substituted in the priority position of the primary lienholder.” BAC Home Loans, 230 Ariz. at 590, ¶ 6 , 277 P.3d 784 ; see also Mosher v. Conway, 45 Ariz. 463, 472 , 46 P.2d 110 (1935) (“The general rule is that a person having an interest in property who pays off an encumbrance in order to protect his interest is subrogated to the rights and limitations of the person paid.”). ¶ 17 As our supreme court has explained, however, “[ejquitable sub 2017This court has held that “the doctrine of equitable subrogation allows a subsequent lender who applies funds to a primary and superior encumbrance to be substituted in the priority position of the primary lienholder.” BAC Home Loans, 230 Ariz. at 590, ¶ 6 , 277 P.3d 784 ; see also Mosher v. Conway, 45 Ariz. 463, 472 , 46 P.2d 110 (1935) (“The general rule is that a person having an interest in property who pays off an encumbrance in order to protect his interest is subrogated to the rights and limitations of the person paid.”). ¶ 17 As our supreme court has explained, however, “[ejquitable sub | 1 | 1 |
Mosher v. Conwaygreen2 sentences2017This court has held that “the doctrine of equitable subrogation allows a subsequent lender who applies funds to a primary and superior encumbrance to be substituted in the priority position of the primary lienholder.” BAC Home Loans, 230 Ariz. at 590, ¶ 6 , 277 P.3d 784 ; see also Mosher v. Conway, 45 Ariz. 463, 472 , 46 P.2d 110 (1935) (“The general rule is that a person having an interest in property who pays off an encumbrance in order to protect his interest is subrogated to the rights and limitations of the person paid.”). ¶ 17 As our supreme court has explained, however, “[ejquitable sub 2017This court has held that “the doctrine of equitable subrogation allows a subsequent lender who applies funds to a primary and superior encumbrance to be substituted in the priority position of the primary lienholder.” BAC Home Loans, 230 Ariz. at 590, ¶ 6 , 277 P.3d 784 ; see also Mosher v. Conway, 45 Ariz. 463, 472 , 46 P.2d 110 (1935) (“The general rule is that a person having an interest in property who pays off an encumbrance in order to protect his interest is subrogated to the rights and limitations of the person paid.”). ¶ 17 As our supreme court has explained, however, “[ejquitable sub | 1 | 1 |
Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Norcuttgreen2 sentences2017Equitable Subrogation. ¶ 15 Chase next argues that, even if the replacement doctrine applies, equitable subrogation does not apply because US Bank’s predecessor, FMF, “was aware of Chase’s lien and failed to take proper steps to ensure that it was satisfied and released.” ¶ 16 As with replacement, Arizona has adopted the definition of subrogation set forth in Restatement § 7.6: “One who fully performs an obligation of another, secured by a mortgage, becomes by subrogation the owner of the obligation and the mortgage to the extent necessary to prevent unjust enrichment.” (Emphasis added); Sourc 2017Equitable Subrogation. ¶ 15 Chase next argues that, even if the replacement doctrine applies, equitable subrogation does not apply because US Bank’s predecessor, FMF, “was aware of Chase’s lien and failed to take proper steps to ensure that it was satisfied and released.” ¶ 16 As with replacement, Arizona has adopted the definition of subrogation set forth in Restatement § 7.6: “One who fully performs an obligation of another, secured by a mortgage, becomes by subrogation the owner of the obligation and the mortgage to the extent necessary to prevent unjust enrichment.” (Emphasis added); Sourc | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brimet II, LLC v. Destiny Homes Marketing, LLC
green
1 sentence2018“Because an intervening lienholder maintains the same position it had before the replacement lender satisfied the pre-existing obligation, it suffers no prejudice.” Brimet II, LLC v. Destiny Homes Mktg., LLC, 231 Ariz. 457 , 459–60 ¶ 11 (App. 2013). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Peterman-Donnelly Engineers & Contractors Corp. v. First National Bank
green
2 sentences2013Lenders have made no assertion they are entitled to priority based on the replacement doctrine; therefore, we do not address whether a court may rely on that doctrine to alter the lien priorities established by § 33-992(A). ¶ 14 In Petermarir-Donnelly, the Apache Junction Chamber of Commerce borrowed $10,000 from Eyre, secured by a mortgage on property where the Chamber intended to construct a baseball facility. 2 Ariz.App. at 322 , 408 P.2d at 842 . 2013Lenders have made no assertion they are entitled to priority based on the replacement doctrine; therefore, we do not address whether a court may rely on that doctrine to alter the lien priorities established by § 33-992(A). ¶ 14 In Petermarir-Donnelly, the Apache Junction Chamber of Commerce borrowed $10,000 from Eyre, secured by a mortgage on property where the Chamber intended to construct a baseball facility. 2 Ariz.App. at 322 , 408 P.2d at 842 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.