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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1984–1989 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dawn Investment Co. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1987See Scappaticci, supra; Patton, supra; Harn, supra. 5 We agree with the court of appeals, 152 Ariz. at 26 , 730 P.2d 203 ; that the reasoning of these cases applies equally to commercial and investment loans; therefore, Western’s attempt to use the due-on-sale clause in the Snows’ mortgage to exact new conditions did unreasonably restrain alienation. 6 Scappaticci, supra; accord Dawn Investment Co. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.3d 695 , 639 P.2d 974 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1982); cf. Campbell v. Westdahl, 148 Ariz. 432, 438 , 715 P.2d 288, 294 (App.1985) (landlord’s refusal to consent to assignment o 1987See Scappaticci, supra; Patton, supra; Harn, supra. 5 We agree with the court of appeals, 152 Ariz. at 26 , 730 P.2d 203 ; that the reasoning of these cases applies equally to commercial and investment loans; therefore, Western’s attempt to use the due-on-sale clause in the Snows’ mortgage to exact new conditions did unreasonably restrain alienation. 6 Scappaticci, supra; accord Dawn Investment Co. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.3d 695 , 639 P.2d 974 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1982); cf. Campbell v. Westdahl, 148 Ariz. 432, 438 , 715 P.2d 288, 294 (App.1985) (landlord’s refusal to consent to assignment o | 1 | 2 |
Holiday Acres No. 3 v. Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen1 sentence1989Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 308 N.W.2d 471, 480 [Minn.1981]), but with the advent of inflationary increases in the cost of borrowing money the clause has been used to protect the lender against other risks involved in the long-term loans associated with home finance. | 1 | 1 |
Silver v. Rochester Savings Bankgreen1 sentence1987See Silver v. Rochester Savings Bank, 73 A.D.2d 81 , 424 N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Westdahlgreen2 sentences1987See Scappaticci, supra; Patton, supra; Harn, supra. 5 We agree with the court of appeals, 152 Ariz. at 26 , 730 P.2d 203 ; that the reasoning of these cases applies equally to commercial and investment loans; therefore, Western’s attempt to use the due-on-sale clause in the Snows’ mortgage to exact new conditions did unreasonably restrain alienation. 6 Scappaticci, supra; accord Dawn Investment Co. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.3d 695 , 639 P.2d 974 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1982); cf. Campbell v. Westdahl, 148 Ariz. 432, 438 , 715 P.2d 288, 294 (App.1985) (landlord’s refusal to consent to assignment o 1987See Scappaticci, supra; Patton, supra; Harn, supra. 5 We agree with the court of appeals, 152 Ariz. at 26 , 730 P.2d 203 ; that the reasoning of these cases applies equally to commercial and investment loans; therefore, Western’s attempt to use the due-on-sale clause in the Snows’ mortgage to exact new conditions did unreasonably restrain alienation. 6 Scappaticci, supra; accord Dawn Investment Co. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.3d 695 , 639 P.2d 974 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1982); cf. Campbell v. Westdahl, 148 Ariz. 432, 438 , 715 P.2d 288, 294 (App.1985) (landlord’s refusal to consent to assignment o | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Occidental Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Venco Partnershipgreen2 sentences1987But see Occidental Savings & Loan Association v. Venco Partnership, 206 Neb. 469, 480 , 293 N.W.2d 843, 849 (1980) (the due-on-sale clause is an important device to balance portfolio return with cost of money, ensuring survival of lending associations). 1987But see Occidental Savings & Loan Association v. Venco Partnership, 206 Neb. 469, 480 , 293 N.W.2d 843, 849 (1980) (the due-on-sale clause is an important device to balance portfolio return with cost of money, ensuring survival of lending associations). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tipton v. Burson
green
2 sentences1988Arizona courts have also found unlawful interference where the defendant secured the discharge of an employee who refused to act in an arguably criminal way, Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381 , 710 P.2d at 1036 ; or wrongfully claimed the right to control water rights leased by the plaintiff to a third party, Tipton v. Burson, 73 Ariz. 144 , 238 P.2d 1098 (1951); or where a mortgagee claimed in bad faith the right to enforce a due-on-sale clause, Snow v. Western Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 152 Ariz. 27 , 730 P.2d 204 (1987). 1988Arizona courts have also found unlawful interference where the defendant secured the discharge of an employee who refused to act in an arguably criminal way, Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381 , 710 P.2d at 1036 ; or wrongfully claimed the right to control water rights leased by the plaintiff to a third party, Tipton v. Burson, 73 Ariz. 144 , 238 P.2d 1098 (1951); or where a mortgagee claimed in bad faith the right to enforce a due-on-sale clause, Snow v. Western Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 152 Ariz. 27 , 730 P.2d 204 (1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences1988Arizona courts have also found unlawful interference where the defendant secured the discharge of an employee who refused to act in an arguably criminal way, Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381 , 710 P.2d at 1036 ; or wrongfully claimed the right to control water rights leased by the plaintiff to a third party, Tipton v. Burson, 73 Ariz. 144 , 238 P.2d 1098 (1951); or where a mortgagee claimed in bad faith the right to enforce a due-on-sale clause, Snow v. Western Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 152 Ariz. 27 , 730 P.2d 204 (1987). 1988Arizona courts have also found unlawful interference where the defendant secured the discharge of an employee who refused to act in an arguably criminal way, Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381 , 710 P.2d at 1036 ; or wrongfully claimed the right to control water rights leased by the plaintiff to a third party, Tipton v. Burson, 73 Ariz. 144 , 238 P.2d 1098 (1951); or where a mortgagee claimed in bad faith the right to enforce a due-on-sale clause, Snow v. Western Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 152 Ariz. 27 , 730 P.2d 204 (1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n
green
2 sentences1988Arizona courts have also found unlawful interference where the defendant secured the discharge of an employee who refused to act in an arguably criminal way, Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381 , 710 P.2d at 1036 ; or wrongfully claimed the right to control water rights leased by the plaintiff to a third party, Tipton v. Burson, 73 Ariz. 144 , 238 P.2d 1098 (1951); or where a mortgagee claimed in bad faith the right to enforce a due-on-sale clause, Snow v. Western Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 152 Ariz. 27 , 730 P.2d 204 (1987). 1988Arizona courts have also found unlawful interference where the defendant secured the discharge of an employee who refused to act in an arguably criminal way, Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 381 , 710 P.2d at 1036 ; or wrongfully claimed the right to control water rights leased by the plaintiff to a third party, Tipton v. Burson, 73 Ariz. 144 , 238 P.2d 1098 (1951); or where a mortgagee claimed in bad faith the right to enforce a due-on-sale clause, Snow v. Western Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 152 Ariz. 27 , 730 P.2d 204 (1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n
green
2 sentences1987The court of appeals affirmed on the damage claim, holding that Western was not liable for the Snows’ lost sale because Western in 1982 had a reasonable argument that it was entitled to invoke the due-on-sale clause. 152 Ariz. at 26 , 730 P.2d at 203 . 1987The court of appeals affirmed on the damage claim, holding that Western was not liable for the Snows’ lost sale because Western in 1982 had a reasonable argument that it was entitled to invoke the due-on-sale clause. 152 Ariz. at 26 , 730 P.2d at 203 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Wellenkamp v. Bank of America
green
2 sentences1985In its decision in Wellenkamp v. Bank of America, 21 Cal.3d 943 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 379 , 582 P.2d 970 (1978), the California Supreme Court nevertheless held that automatic enforcement of a due-on-sale clause after an outright sale involving assumption of the debt constituted an unreasonable restraint on alienation. 1985In its decision in Wellenkamp v. Bank of America, 21 Cal.3d 943 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 379 , 582 P.2d 970 (1978), the California Supreme Court nevertheless held that automatic enforcement of a due-on-sale clause after an outright sale involving assumption of the debt constituted an unreasonable restraint on alienation. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n
green
2 sentences1984Until October 15, 1987, the enforceability of a due on sale clause in the real property loans described in § 33-1571, paragraph 1, Arizona Revised Statutés, is subject to existing statutory and judicial restrictions, including those declared by the Arizona supreme court in the case of Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings and Loan Association, [ 135 Ariz. 456 , 662 P.2d 131 ] No. 16266, rendered March 10, 1983.” (Emphasis added) The Van Maries contend that the effect of the enactment of § 33-1571 was to limit the restriction on enforcement of due-on-sale clauses to residential properties under two 1984Until October 15, 1987, the enforceability of a due on sale clause in the real property loans described in § 33-1571, paragraph 1, Arizona Revised Statutés, is subject to existing statutory and judicial restrictions, including those declared by the Arizona supreme court in the case of Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings and Loan Association, [ 135 Ariz. 456 , 662 P.2d 131 ] No. 16266, rendered March 10, 1983.” (Emphasis added) The Van Maries contend that the effect of the enactment of § 33-1571 was to limit the restriction on enforcement of due-on-sale clauses to residential properties under two | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.