Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Baltimore Life Insurance Company v. Harn, 486 P.2d 190.

25 citing documents.

Jurju v. Ile 534 P.3d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Jurju v. Ile 534 P.3d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
v. Harn, (“The plaintiff in an action of an equitable nature must allege sufficient facts that when taken as true entitle it to the relief it seeks.”).
Vonk v. Dunn 775 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1989
Vonk v. Dunn 775 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1989
at 101 , 387 P.2d at 803 ; , rev. denied
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
rev. denied, , Holiday Acres No. 3 v. Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association, 308 N.W.2d 471, 480 (Minn.1981); Note, It’s Due Time: Federal Preemption of Due-on-Sale Controversies, 24 ARIZ.L.
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
This court rendered Arizona’s
Pima County v. Ina/Oldfather 4.7 Acres Trust 2292 700 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Pima County v. Ina/Oldfather 4.7 Acres Trust 2292 700 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
For the first time on appeal appellants argue against the enforceability of paragraph 6
Phillips v. Superior Court 692 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Phillips v. Superior Court 692 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
§ 1701j — 3(c), the “window period” in Arizona commenced on July 8, 1971, the date of the court of appeals’
Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 662 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1983
Scappaticci v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 662 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1983
On July 8, 1971, , , petition for review denied, , the Court of Appeals held that Baltimore Life, the mortgagee of property belonging to Harn, could not accelerate payment of the loan absent a showing that Baltimore Life’s security in the property was threatened.
Holiday Acres No. 3 v. Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 308 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1981
Frei v. Hamilton 601 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Frei v. Hamilton 601 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Patton v. FIRST FED. SAV. & LOAN ASS'N, ETC. 578 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1978
Patton v. FIRST FED. SAV. & LOAN ASS'N, ETC. 578 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1978
Pleasants v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 569 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Pleasants v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 569 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Pleasants 534 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Pleasants 534 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Lane v. Bisceglia 488 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Lane v. Bisceglia 488 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
We find it unimportant to decide whether - the purchasers under these facts would be charged with knowledge of the various clauses in the mortgage, since we find that the mortgage company only had the apparent right, , to approve or reject the assumption and had no right to conditionally approve the assumption at a greater rate of interest.