BUKHARIAN v. ZADIKOV

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

BUKHARIAN JEWISH CONGRESS OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

REVITAL ZADIKOV, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 23-0795
FILED 12-31-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2022-005436
The Honorable Erik Thorson, Judge

REVERSED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Iannitelli Marcolini, P.C., Phoenix
By Claudio E. Iannitelli, William H. Kennedy
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

Law Office of Roman A. Kostenko, PLC, Phoenix
By Roman A. Kostenko
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
 BUKHARIAN v. ZADIKOV, et al.
Decision of the Court

Womble Bond Dickinson, LLP, Phoenix
By Daniel P. Crane
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Revital Zadikov

Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., Phoenix
By Richard C. Gramlich
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Great American Title Company

Amnon Zadikov, Mazan Zadikov
Defendants/Appellees

Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A., Phoenix
By Daryl Manhart, Andrew Abraham, Casey Blais
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees RSTK

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

F O S T E R, Judge:

¶1 Bukharian Jewish Congress of Arizona, Inc. (“Bukharian”)
filed a quiet title action over property that Revital Zadikov conveyed to
RSTK Phoenix Owner I, L.P. (“RSTK”), alleging Zadikov had no authority
to convey the property on its behalf. On summary judgment, the superior
court found that RSTK’s bona fide purchaser status entitled it to the
Property. This Court reverses the grant of summary judgment and remands
this case to the superior court to determine whether Zadikov had corporate
authority to transfer title to the Property before considering RSTK’s rights
as a bona fide purchaser.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This Court reviews de novo a grant of summary judgment,
“view[ing] the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209, 213, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

2
 BUKHARIAN v. ZADIKOV, et al.
Decision of the Court

¶3 Bukharian, an Arizona corporation, owned Parque Vista
Estates (“Property”).1 Before July 2021, Bukharian’s annual reports did not
include Zadikov as one of two listed corporate officers. In July 2021,
Zadikov filed Bukharian’s annual reports for 2020 and 2021, listing herself
as Bukharian’s chief executive officer (“CEO”). She subsequently signed
paperwork to convey the Property, resulting in four transfers that provide
the basis for this dispute.

¶4 Zadikov first executed and recorded a warranty deed
transferring the Property to herself in her purported capacity as
Bukharian’s CEO. She next executed and recorded a warranty deed
transferring the Property to Wholesalezon LLC, which she owned. In a
third conveyance, Wholesalezon executed and recorded a warranty deed
transferring the Property to Crown Servicing, LLC, which had no affiliation
with Zadikov or Bukharian. The fourth and final conveyance occurred
when Crown Servicing, LLC later sold the Property to RSTK.

¶5 In July 2022, Bukharian sued RSTK to quiet title of the
Property, alleging fraud and other claims. Its complaint claimed that
Zadikov was not the CEO of Bukharian and therefore had no authority to
convey the Property to herself. Bukharian contended Zadikov’s transfer to
herself and all subsequent transfers were void.

¶6 RSTK moved for summary judgment, claiming its status as a
bona fide purchaser entitled it to dismissal of the quiet title action.
Bukharian responded that because Zadikov had no authority to convey the
Property, any document she signed purporting to have authority to transfer
it was a forgery and fraud. After briefing and oral argument, the court
found that regardless of Bukharian’s forgery and fraud claim, Zadikov
signed the deed as herself, not someone else, and thus the signature was
not a forgery that voided the conveyance. The court concluded that RSTK
was a bona fide purchaser and granted summary judgment in its favor.2

¶7 Bukharian timely appealed. This Court has jurisdiction under
A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).

1 Although this case initially involved other properties, this appeal only

concerns the Parque Vista Estates Property.
2 The superior court also ordered summary judgment on behalf of another

party who did not pursue their appeal.

3
 BUKHARIAN v. ZADIKOV, et al.
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶8 Bukharian asserts that the dispositive issue on appeal is
“whether a deed transferring real property owned by a corporate entity is
‘void’ where the corporate entity’s signature” is forged.3 But answering that
question first requires a determination of whether Zadikov was authorized
to convey the Property.

¶9 Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In granting summary judgment,
the superior court focused on whether the initial conveyance deed was
forged. It found that because Zadikov “claim[ed] to be herself” when she
signed the deed, Bukharian was “not disput[ing] that [Zadikov] executed
the deed.” The court therefore determined that the deed was not forged, not
void, and RSTK’s bona fide purchaser status entitled it to the Property.

¶10 Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 33-401(A) states that no
real estate transfer is effective “unless the conveyance is by an instrument
in writing, subscribed and delivered by the party disposing of the estate, or by
his agent thereunto authorized by writing.” (emphasis added). Here,
Bukharian’s complaint disputed that Zadikov was its CEO and claimed she
had no authority to convey title to the Property. It sought a declaratory
judgment that it was the owner of the Property and that Zadikov’s
conveyance of the Property was void. RSTK objected to these facts, arguing
they were immaterial because RSTK’s status as a bona fide purchaser
prevailed. But the court first needed to resolve the question of whether
Zadikov had authority to convey title to the Property under § 33-401(A)
before analyzing RSTK’s bona fide purchaser argument.

¶11 Though RSTK’s bona fide purchaser status provides some
protection in a title dispute per A.R.S. § 33-412(B), it does not negate the
first requirement that the person transferring title actually possess legal title
under A.R.S. § 33-401(A). See also A.R.S. § 33-420(D) (“A document
purporting to create an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real
property not authorized by statute, judgment or other specific legal
authority is presumed to be groundless and invalid.”). RSTK’s forgery
arguments therefore are secondary to the threshold “authority to convey”
question.

3 Because this Court reverses the grant of summary judgment, it also
vacates, without prejudice, the award of attorneys’ fees to RSTK.

4
 BUKHARIAN v. ZADIKOV, et al.
Decision of the Court

¶12 Since conveyance of property is only valid if an owner or its
agent effectuated the transfer, a genuine issue of material fact remains, and
the superior court erred in granting summary judgment. If Zadikov lacked
Bukharian’s authority to convey the Property to herself, that transaction
and any subsequent conveyances were invalid. A.R.S. §§ 33-401(A), -
420(D). Therefore, this Court reverses the grant of summary judgment and
remands for the superior court to determine whether Bukharian authorized
Zadikov to convey title to herself before addressing RSTK’s rights as a bona
fide purchaser. This Court awards Bukharian its taxable costs pursuant to
A.R.S. § 12-341.

CONCLUSION

¶13 This Court reverses the superior court’s grant of summary
judgment and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this
decision.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5