Cited by

¶ 72 (App. 2014) (“[F]actual disputes are not addressed at the pleadings stage; our review is limited to the legal sufficiency of the allegations contained in [plaintiff’s] complaint.”).

5 KAUFMAN, et al. v. GUEVARA, et al. Opinion of the Court based on a statute enacted ‘for the protection and safety of the public.’” ¶ 56 (App. 2014) ().

Pelchat’s claims accrued, at the latest, upon her receipt of the medical records in “mid-January 2022.” ¶32 Based on the face of the complaint and indulging “all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party,” ¶ 23 (App. 2014), we cannot say as a matter of law that Pelchat’s claims are time-barred.

of Maricopa, ¶ 75 (App. 2014) (recognizing the “more stringent [pleading] requirements of Rule 9(b)”).

See Steinberger v. McVey, 8 POTTER v. EHRICH Decision of the Court ¶¶ 56-57 (App. 2014).

County of Maricopa, ¶ 73 (App. 2014) (quoting Linder v. Brown & Herrick, –05 (App. 1997)).

of Maricopa, ¶¶ 56–57 (App. 2014).

¶ 23 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).

¶32 Furthermore, arguments about the weakness of FMZ’s title do not carry the Velazquezes’ burden of proving a superior claim because “[a] plaintiff pursuing a quiet title action must allege he holds title to the property; he cannot seek to quiet title solely based on the alleged weaknesses of his adversary’s title.” ¶ 65 (App. 2014).

of Maricopa, –42 ¶¶ 74–75 (App. 2014) (stating that consumer fraud claims must include “detailed supporting allegations,” including specifically identifying the actors involved and their alleged misconduct).

County of Maricopa, ¶ 45 (App. 2014); Quiroz, 243 Ariz. at 565, ¶ 14; ¶ 10 (2010) (“[T]he common law imposes a duty of reasonable care on a party who voluntarily undertakes to protect persons or property from physical harm.”); Lloyd v. State Farm Mut.

§ 33-811(C) exists for monetary claims); ¶ 42 (App. 2014) (any challenge to the chain of authority must come before the sale).

County of Maricopa, ¶ 65 (App. 2014).

of Maricopa, ¶ 67 (App. 2014) (citing Thunderbird Metallurgical, ).

of Maricopa, ¶ 65 (App. 2014) (“A plaintiff pursuing a quiet title action must allege he holds title to the property; he cannot seek to quiet title solely based on the alleged weaknesses of his adversary’s title.”).

P. 9(b); ¶ 73 (App. 2014); -39 (1966) (stating elements).

County of Maricopa, ¶ 42 (App. 2014), Singh next contends the superior court erred by rejecting his defense that he was not given notice of the trustee’s sale.

Maricopa Cty., -41, ¶¶ 67-72 (App. 2014) (explaining a trustor may bring a breach of contract claim in Arizona to recover attorneys’ fees, costs, and accruing interest on a promissory note when the beneficiary failed to comply with certain procedures outlined in the deed of trust that had to be performed before the beneficiary c

of Maricopa, ¶ 42 (App. 2014) (“[O]nce a non- judicial foreclosure sale has taken place, the only defense that may be raised is lack of notice of the sale.”).

§ 47-3309 is contained within Arizona’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and “the UCC does not govern liens on real property.” ¶ 43 n.14 (App. 2014).

County of Maricopa, ¶ 65 (App. 2014) (emphasis added).

County of Maricopa, 7 ANTSELIOVICH, et al. v. US BANK Decision of the Court ¶20 ¶ 73 (App. 2014).

of Maricopa, ¶¶ 45–46 (App. 2014).

County of Maricopa, ¶ 25 (App. 2014).

This assertion, however, is contrary to established law that, under a deed of trust, “the trustee holds legal title until the loan balance is paid.” ¶ 65 (App. 2014) (citing A.R.S.