Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hatch Companies Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Bank, 826 P.2d 1179.

26 citing documents.

Babicky v. Copper State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Babicky v. Copper State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Hatch Cos. Contracting, –56 (App. 1991) (holding that a beneficiary of a deed of trust had standing to sue for minimum statutory damages after a groundless lis pendens had been recorded); ¶ 23 and n.8 (App. 2010) (explaining that an owner or beneficial title holder of real property has standing t
Acedo v. Mannion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Acedo v. Mannion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Hatch Cos. Contracting, (equating “rights incident to title” with a “connection .
Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See id.; Hatch Companies Contracting, (holding that the “beneficiary of a deed of trust is a beneficial title holder for the property conveyed within the meaning of” A.R.S.
Biel v. Crg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Biel v. Crg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 33–801(8), (10); Hatch Cos. Contracting, (explaining “deed of trust ‘conveys’ the trust property to a trustee who holds the property for the benefit of the beneficiary designated in the deed of trust”).
Karl v. US Bank National Ass'n 308 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Karl v. US Bank National Ass'n 308 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 23 Appellees argue that we should apply Hatch Cos. Contracting, , , for the proposition that trustors who have not paid off their loan obligations are neither owners nor beneficial title holders under A.R.S.
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
See generally Hatch Cos. Contracting
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Corp., -98, -08 (App. 1996)
Beck v. Deem 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Olson 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Olson 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See Hatch Co. Contracting, , ("It appears that in using the phrase `owner or beneficial title holder' in A.R.S.
Beck v. Deem 224 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See Hatch Co. Contracting, , (“It appears that in using the phrase ‘owner or beneficial title holder’ in A.R.S.
Santa Fe Ridge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Bartschi 199 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Santa Fe Ridge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Bartschi 199 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See Hatch Cos. Contracting, , (equating “rights incident to title” as set forth in Tucson Estates with the lawsuit’s “connection ...
Hanson Aggregates Arizona, Inc. v. Rissling Construction Group, Inc. 127 P.3d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Hanson Aggregates Arizona, Inc. v. Rissling Construction Group, Inc. 127 P.3d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
§ 33-1004(A), (E); Hatch Companies Contracting, , (“The obvious policy of the hen discharge statute is to give property owners the ability to free their property from liens.”).
Pence v. Glacy 87 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Pence v. Glacy 87 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 13 Pence argues that Wyatt was limited to its facts by Hatch Cos. Contracting
HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp. 18 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp. 18 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Hatch Cos. Contracting, , (citation omitted).