Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Watson Construction Co. v. Amfac Mortgage Corp., 606 P.2d 421.

54 citing documents.

Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Gipson v. Shinnink Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Corp., (deviating from “net judgment rule” when there were monetary and non- monetary equitable claims with varied success); Nataros v. Fine Arts Gallery of Scottsdale, Inc., 49 (App. 1980) (applying “totality of the litigation” test when no damages were awarded in case where defendant succ
Deutsche Bank v. Pheasant Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Deutsche Bank v. Pheasant Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Corp., (a deed of trust that “set forth the names of the parties, the nature of the transaction, described the property involved, and stated the amount of indebtedness” was sufficient 9 DEUTSCHE BANK v. PHEASANT GROVE Decisio
Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schenk v. Casebolt II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Corp., –85 (App. 1979) (affirming award of no costs to either where there was “the difficulty .
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Corp., (finding deed of trust provided constructive notice despite omission of two pages containing foreclosure clauses).
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-85 , -36 (App.1979), and in light of our opinion, this ease is not over.
Kaz Construction, Inc v. Sierra Cobre Estates, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Kaz Construction, Inc v. Sierra Cobre Estates, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Corp., -76, -27 (App. 1979) (recorded deed of trust containing names of parties, nature of transaction, and property description not defective for constructive notice purposes; adequate to apprise third parties of nature and substance of rights claimed under it).
NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
NICKERSON v. GREEN VALLEY RECREATION, INC. 265 P.3d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Corp., (objection to improper jury argument waived when not raised until motion for new trial).
3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Estate Service 229 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Estate Service 229 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Coup., , (deed of trust containing a legal description but missing two pages that contained provisions allowing foreclosure in the event of default could provide constructive notice).
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Kings Hill counters that the failure to resubmit the altered amendment to the unit owners for approval was an oversight and that such a mistake should not invalidate the entire amendment, -77 , -22 (App.1992)
Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(objection to improper jury argument was waived when not raised until motion for new trial).
Phipps v. CW Leasing, Inc. 923 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Phipps v. CW Leasing, Inc. 923 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
as holding that once an instrument is recorded, it gives constructive notice to the world even if the recording is defective.
Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dunn v. Maras 897 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Villas at Hidden Lakes Condominiums Ass'n v. Geupel Construction Co. 847 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Villas at Hidden Lakes Condominiums Ass'n v. Geupel Construction Co. 847 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(“A.R.S.”) § 33-416 (provides that recording is notice to all persons); 1 Carley v. Lee, 58 Ariz. *77 268, 272, (document gives constructive notice if it sufficiently informs third persons of the nature and substance of rights claimed under it); -76 , -27 (1979) (deed of trust missing two pages still sufficient to “apprise third parties of the nature and substance of the right claimed”).
C S & W Contractors, Inc. v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 852 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
C S & W Contractors, Inc. v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 852 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
The only Arizona authorities Southwest cites in support of its proposition that inquiry notice satisfies the actual notice requirement of the statute are
Egan-Ryan Mechanical Co. v. Cardon Meadows Development Corp. 818 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Egan-Ryan Mechanical Co. v. Cardon Meadows Development Corp. 818 P.2d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Wyatt v. Wehmueller 785 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Wyatt v. Wehmueller 785 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(Rule 54(b) power should be used only “in the infrequent harsh case”); , (Rule 54(b) authority to be used “sparingly” in cases with interrelated claims and counterclaims); , (“too much liberality in this area on the part of trial courts tends to *15 aggravate rather than alleviate the
Ayala v. Olaiz 776 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Ayala v. Olaiz 776 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
White v. Mitchell 759 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
White v. Mitchell 759 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In Re Bisbee 754 P.2d 1135 Ariz. 1988
In Re Bisbee 754 P.2d 1135 Ariz. 1988
is dispositive on the issue of the validity of the constructive notice.
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Landin v. Ford 727 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Landin v. Ford 727 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In support of her contention, , to the effect that apportionment of costs might be appropriate in multiple count and multiple counterclaim litigation when money judgments are not involved.
Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Davis v. Davis 691 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Silva 670 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Silva 670 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Continental Cas. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 635 P.2d 174 Ariz. 1981
Continental Cas. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 635 P.2d 174 Ariz. 1981
(reflecting “increasing concern over an apparently indiscriminate use of 54(b) determinations”); , (urging *192 the trial bench “to use sparingly .
Pulaski v. Perkins 619 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Pulaski v. Perkins 619 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
-73 , -24 (App.1979); , 88-89 n.5, , 991-92 n.5 (App.1979).