Arizona Governor Ducey’s Executive Order on Residential Eviction Actions

Posted on March 27, 2020 by Bob Henry

By:  Bob Henry

As part of the State of Arizona’s response to the current public health crisis, on March 24, 2020, Arizona Governor Ducey issued Executive Order 2020-14, titled “Postponement of Eviction Actions.” A copy of the Executive Order is linked here:  https://azgovernor.gov/executive-orders Residential landlords considering taking any action against tenants, including evictions, should be aware of this Order before proceeding.

In summary, the Order effectively requires all Arizona law enforcement officers who are typically charged with enforcing “eviction action orders” (from Arizona courts) to “temporarily delay enforcement” of such orders in various circumstances, including for tenants who are quarantined, or who are residing with others who are quarantined, because of COVID-19 (including self-quarantines pursuant to orders from licensed medical providers) or for tenants who have a health condition that “makes them more at risk for COVID-19 than the average person.”  The Order also requires such actions to be delayed if the tenant has “suffered a substantial loss of income resulting from COVID-19” due to job loss, reduction in compensation, and similar economic problems arising out of the pandemic. … Read More »

Author: Bob Henry | Leave a comment Tagged

Share this Article:

If You Purchase a House at an HOA Lien Foreclosure, Are You Entitled to Excess Sale Proceeds?

Posted on November 12, 2019 by Ben Reeves

By: Ben Reeves

That pesky excess sale proceeds statute, A.R.S. § 33-727, is making waves again. We previously blogged about this statute here. In the prior post, we explained that excess sale proceeds (i.e., a foreclosure sale price greater than the lien being foreclosed) must be used to pay other lien creditors, in full, before the owner receives anything. Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that creditors also take excess sale proceeds before the person who purchased the property at foreclosure. The case, Vista Santa Fe Homeowners Association v. Millan, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0609 (Ct.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

Posted on September 3, 2019 by Patrick J. Paul

The advent of the shared economy in the real estate context has provided homeowners and investors alike with expanded opportunities to generate revenue from the use of their real estate. Airbnb and VRBO are two of the most popular companies facilitating short-term rental availability. The rapid growth in this shared real estate economy has served as a disruptor of sorts to the traditional hotel and hospitality industry, causing that industry to revisit its own models in order to better compete.

 

The popularity of short-term rental use, however, has created a whole new set of problems about which property owners, state and local governments, renters, and those impacted by the explosion of short-term rentals should be aware.… Read More »

Author: Patrick J. Paul | Leave a comment Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

Posted on January 17, 2019 by acarucci

By: Tony Carucci

In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal.… Read More »

Author: acarucci | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions

Posted on November 30, 2018 by Ben Reeves

By: Ben Reeves

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently held that any successful plaintiff in a forcible detainer action (i.e., an eviction action) may recover an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred at trial under A.R.S. § 12-1178(A). See Bank of New York v. Dodev, 1 CA-CV 17-0652 (Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018). Prior to this decision, caselaw held that fees were only awardable in actions arising out of the termination of a residential lease. RREEF Mgmt. Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., 190 Ariz. 75, 945 P.2d 386 (Ct. App. 1997). Changes to the statute, however, rendered the prior caselaw obsolete.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

Everyone Wins When a Foreclosure Sale Generates Excess Proceeds

Posted on July 13, 2018 by Ben Reeves

By: Ben Reeves

Introduction

When a foreclosure sale generates more money than needed to pay off the lien, the excess proceeds usually go first to creditors in the order of their priority, and second to the owner after creditors are paid in full. So, in truth, not everyone wins when a foreclosure sale brings in too much money.  Amusingly, in Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins, the court awarded excess sale proceeds to….you guessed it…Everyone Wins, despite the owner’s argument that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes barred it from recovering anything.

In addition to supplying a clever title for this post, Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins provides an important analysis of how Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes, homeowner’s assessment lien statutes, and foreclosure statutes apply when determining who “wins” when it comes to excess sale proceeds.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

Posted on February 23, 2018 by Ben Reeves

By: Ben Reeves

Introduction

Arizona’s trustee’s sale statutory scheme provides for the waiver of all defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale that: (i) are not raised prior to the sale, and (ii) do not result in an injunction against the sale going forward.  See A.R.S. § 33-811(C).  In other words, if you have an objection to a trustee’s sale, you must seek and obtain an injunction prior to the sale or your objection will be waived.

Arizona’s Court of Appeals previously held that notwithstanding this statutory waiver, “common law” defenses to repayment of the debt survive a non-judicial foreclosure even in the absence of an injunction prior to the sale.  … Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article: