Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Premier Financial Services. v. Citibank, 912 P.2d 1309.

73 citing documents.

Demand v. Minderman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Demand v. Minderman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
v. Citibank, n.2 (App. 1995) (referring to these considerations as “badges of fraud”).
Mac Kenzie v. Howerton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Mac Kenzie v. Howerton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
v. Citibank (Ariz.), ().
Glennon v. Harvey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Glennon v. Harvey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
R & a Smart v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
R & a Smart v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Troutman v. Troutman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Troutman v. Troutman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Silverdove v. Greenbank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Silverdove v. Greenbank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Svansdottir v. Johnsesn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Svansdottir v. Johnsesn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Johnson v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Johnson v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Citibank (Ariz.), -87 (App. 1995)); rather, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s findings and determine “whether evidence in the record reasonably supports” those findings.
Thornburg v. Thornburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Thornburg v. Thornburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Citibank (Ariz.), -87 (App. 1995)); rather, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s findings and determine “whether evidence in the record reasonably supports” those findings.
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest 449 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest 449 P.3d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Citibank (Arizona), (same).
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Citibank (Ariz.), (affirming superior court’s conclusion at a garnishment proceeding that parents fraudulently transferred a certificate of deposit to their daughter); (“Legal action to prove a fraudulent conveyance need not be separate from the garnishment proceeding.”)
El-Sharkawy v. El-Sharkawy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
El-Sharkawy v. El-Sharkawy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Riordan-Karlsson v. Az Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Riordan-Karlsson v. Az Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Citibank, (no jurisdiction to review rulings not contained in notice of appeal).
Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kurowski v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kurowski v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Citibank (Arizona), (“It is not our prerogative to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses; that role belongs to the trial court.”).
Reyes v. Mendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Reyes v. Mendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Reeck v. Mendoza 304 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Reeck v. Mendoza 304 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
v. Citibank (Ariz.), -87 , -16 (App.1995) (court of appeals cannot consider issues, theories, and evidence not presented to superior court).
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
v. Citibank, , (emphasis added).
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
v. Citibank, , (no jurisdiction to review rulings not contained in notice of appeal).
Freeman v. Sorchych 245 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Freeman v. Sorchych 245 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Servs, v. Citibank (Ariz.), , (stating that the role of weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses is the role of the trial court).
Gaveck v. Arizona State Board of Podiatry Examiners 215 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Gaveck v. Arizona State Board of Podiatry Examiners 215 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
v. Citibank (Ariz.), , (stating that a fact-finder “is not bound to accept even the uncontradicted evidence of a disinterested party,” to say nothing of interested ones (citing In re Wainola’s Estate, , )).
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶26 The dissent also relies on Premier Financial Services, Inc. v. Citibank (Arizona), , which states, “a trial court is not bound to accept even the uncontradicted evidence of a disinterested party.” Like Estate of Reinen and Nystrom , however, that case is readily distinguishable.
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Sen’s v. Citibank (Ariz.), (“We cannot consider issues and theories that were not presented to the court below.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by