Cited by

Trust Co., –19 ¶¶ 15–17 (App. 2013) (concluding the property owner had standing to assert a claim under A.R.S.

Co., ¶ 12 (App. 2013) (failure to obtain injunctive relief waives that claim).

Trust Co., ¶ 12 (App. 2013) (same).

Trust Co., ¶ 23 (App. 2013).

¶10 to argue that “A.R.S.

§ 33-420 does not require a plaintiff who alleges the recording of forged, groundless, or otherwise invalid documents to prove the falsities are material, and that pursuant to Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., at least some misrepresentations could be material to borrowers like Appellants.

Co., –18 ¶¶ 12–13 (App. 2013) (recognizing that § 33-811(C) does not bar claims or defenses that are independent of the trustee’s sale).

Co., ¶ 26 (App. 2013) (finding no abuse of discretion in superior court’s consideration of declaration submitted in reply, but only because the nonmoving party suffered no prejudice).

Co., n.1, ¶ 3 (App. 2013) (citing Stauffer v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, n.1, ¶ 2 (App. 2013)).

.” (emphasis added)), 56(c)(2) (“The moving party shall have 15 days after service of the response in which to serve a reply memorandum and any supporting materials.” (emphasis added)); see also Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., ¶ 26 (App. 2013) (finding no abuse of discretion in superior court’s consideration of supplementary, nonprejudicial declaration submitted with reply to motion for summary judgment).

¶6 While this case was on remand to the superior court, this court issued another opinion, Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., P.3d 237 (App. 2013), where it held certain misstatements in three recorded documents (notice of trustee’s sale, notice of substitution of trustee, and assignment of note and deed of trust)—similar to the Recorded Documents here—did not constitute material misstatements.

¶7 For a misstatement to be material, “a reasonable person ‘would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining [his or her] choice of action in the transaction in question.’” Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., ¶ 31, (alteration in original) ( ¶ 28, ).

See Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., ¶ 13 , (“Section 33-811(0) contemplates the waiver of ‘defenses and objections to the sale’ only____”); see also Snyder v. HSBC Bank, U.S.A., N.A., 913 F.Supp.2d 755, 770 (D.Ariz.2012) (“Section 33-811(0, however, does not prevent Plaintiff from asserting claims for relief independen

See Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., n.2, ¶ 14, n.2 (App. 2013).

Trust Co., n.1, ¶ 3, n.1 (App. 2013); see also Steinberger v. McVey ex rel.

Trust Co., , 222 n. 6, ¶ 33, , 244 n. 6 (App.2013).