Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chantler v. Wood, 430 P.2d 713.

54 citing documents.

Bowyer v. Bowyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Bowyer v. Bowyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“[E]very interest in the title to real property, whether legal or equitable, may be determined in the action.”
Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 12-1101(A) (quiet title action “may be brought by anyone having or claiming an interest” in the subject property); (“[E]very interest in the title to real property, whether legal or equitable, may be determined in [a quiet title] action.”).
Ez Homes v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ez Homes v. Loiselle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(stating that § 12-1103(B) entitles the successful party to “reasonable attorney’s fees for the time spent on the quiet title feature of the case”).
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See e.g., Home Owners’ Loan Corp., 54 Ariz. at 153; Stubbs v. Standard Life Ass’n
Cook v. Grebe 429 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cook v. Grebe 429 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
when determining whether to award attorneys’ fees in a quiet title action under § 12-1103(B)); (noting that 4 COOK v. GREBE, et al. Opinion of the Court § 12-1103(B) entitled plaintiffs “to reasonable attorney’s fees for the time spent on the quiet title feature of the case”).3 B. Reasonablenes
Sorrell v. Gaarde-Morton 357 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sorrell v. Gaarde-Morton 357 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“Reformation is the proper action to correct an erroneous description arising from mutual mistake.”).
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership 265 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Reformation may be granted, inter alia, when “there is a mutual mistake that the seller intended to sell and the buyer intended to purchase a different piece of land than that described in the deed.”
In Re Estate of Parker 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dometri Investments, LLC v. Lind 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dometri Investments, LLC v. Lind 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 23 , precludes protection for Dometri as a “bona fide purchaser” because Mrs. Parker specifically disclaimed any interest in the property in 1983.
In Re Estate of Parker 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 23 , precludes protection for Dometri as a "bona fide purchaser" because Mrs. Parker specifically disclaimed any interest in the property in 1983.
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd. 840 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In making similar arguments, , states that A.R.S.
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 803 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1990
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 803 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1990
Hardine v. Pioneer Nat’l Title Ins., , ( , , opinion supplemented on other grounds, 6 Ariz.App.
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 799 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1990
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 799 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1990
United Bank v. Ashland Development Corp. 792 P.2d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
United Bank v. Ashland Development Corp. 792 P.2d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
(fence next to irrigation ditch); , (deed included house and rectory that parties agreed were not intended to be included); , (north edge of building); Longshaw v. Corbitt, 4 Ariz.App.
Ina Insurance Co. of North America v. Valley Forge Insurance 722 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Ina Insurance Co. of North America v. Valley Forge Insurance 722 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
supplemented 6 Ariz.App.
Mariposa Development Co. v. Stoddard 711 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Mariposa Development Co. v. Stoddard 711 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
The appellants oppose this request
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
this court held that attorney’s fees cannot be awarded on appeal under the authority of A.R.S.
Hardine v. Pioneer National Title Insurance 699 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hardine v. Pioneer National Title Insurance 699 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
opinion supplemented on other grounds, 6 Ariz.App.
Combs v. DuBois 662 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Combs v. DuBois 662 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
supplemented 6 Ariz.App.
Underdown v. Reche 595 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Underdown v. Reche 595 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Rempt v. Borgeas 583 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Rempt v. Borgeas 583 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Such evidence is admissible for the purpose of proving the content of the preexisting express agreement of the parties to the instrument.” , see also Sonnenberg v. Ashby, 17 Ariz.App.
Brean v. North Campbell Professional Building 548 P.2d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Brean v. North Campbell Professional Building 548 P.2d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
See also: , supplemented 6 Ariz.App.
City of Scottsdale v. Burke 504 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Burke 504 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
this Court quoted with approval 74 C.J.S.
Sonnenberg v. Ashby 495 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Sonnenberg v. Ashby 495 P.2d 500 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
supplemented 6 Ariz.App.
Howell v. Remme 480 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Howell v. Remme 480 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971