Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Berryhill v. Moore, 881 P.2d 1182.
- Beck v. Neville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Beck v. Neville
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
–83 (App. 1994) (mistake of fact by the claiming party does not defeat an adverse possession claim).
- Aguilar v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Aguilar v. Aguilar
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Because neither party requested findings of fact or conclusions of law under Rule 82, we “presume that the [superior] court found every fact necessary to support the judgment.”
- Deutsche Bank v. Pheasant Grove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Deutsche Bank v. Pheasant Grove
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[U]nder Arizona law, a mortgagee cannot bring an action to quiet title because the mortgagee has no title.”).
- Woodward v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Woodward v. Acc
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 52(a), meaning this court presumes the superior court “found every fact necessary to support” its ruling
- Russell v. Sahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Russell v. Sahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Nielson v. Starr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Torrez v. Bombard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Torrez v. Bombard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Nielson v. Starr
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Because neither party requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, we “must presume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support the judgment [and] [t]he judgment must be sustained if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies it.”
- Bangiyev v. Arzumanova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Bangiyev v. Arzumanova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Escamilla v. Acuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Escamilla v. Acuna
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶23 Where, as here, no party requests findings of facts and conclusions of law under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 82, we generally presume the superior court found every fact necessary to support the judgment “if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies it.”
- Steelman v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Steelman v. US Bank
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[T]he mortgagee has no title.”).
- Thompson v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Thompson v. Thompson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Because neither party requested specific findings of fact, despite the court’s direction to make such requests prior to the hearing if so desired, we will presume the court found every fact necessary to support its judgment and will sustain the court’s judgment “if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies it.” ( and Ziggy’s Opportunities, Inc. v. I-10 Indus.
- Biel v. Crg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Biel v. Crg
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Such encumbrancers cannot maintain an action to quiet title, for they have no title.” Id.; (“[A] mortgagee’s interest does not attach to the title.
- Southwest v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Southwest v. Burns
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Therefore, on appeal, this court “must presume that the trial court found every fact necessary to support the judgment.”
- Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona
311 P.3d 1075
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
§ 12-1104(B); see, n.4, n.4 (App. 1994) (Section 12-1104 “provides that where it can be shown that enforcement of a lien is barred by a statute of limitations, a person seeking quiet title is entitled to judgment barring assertion of the lien.”).
- Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-
Pat Spaulding v. Michael Pouliot
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Chandler v. Jackson, 148 Ariz. 307, 311, see §§ 12-521, 12-526.
- Retter v. Retter 42 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
- Retter v. Retter 42 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
- Stat-O-Matic Retirement Fund v. Assistance League of Yuma 941 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
- Stat-O-Matic Retirement Fund v. Assistance League of Yuma 941 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997