Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Del Rio Land, Inc. v. Haumont, 514 P.2d 1003.

36 citing documents.

Zayas v. Zayas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Zayas v. Zayas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“A benefit to the promisor or a loss or detriment to the promisee” is sufficient consideration in a contract.); Del Rio Land, (When a purchaser takes property “subject to” the mortgage, the burden of the mortgage remains on the 1 We make no determination on the validity of the deeds transferring the Property from Jesus to Griselda and Victor Sr., or any other determination, which should be addressed in a quiet title action.
Gonzales v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gonzales v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Del Rio Land, (“One against whom a judgment is entered, if he fails to satisfy it, must expect to see his property seized and sold at a sacrifice, and it is difficult to conceive how his payment of the judgment can give rise to any estoppel against his seeking to avoid it for error.”) (quoting Freeman on Judgments, vol.
Red Mountain v. Ingle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Red Mountain v. Ingle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Del Rio Land, (“One against whom a judgment is entered, if he fails to satisfy it, must expect to see his property seized and sold at a sacrifice, and it is difficult to conceive how his payment of the judgment can give rise to any estoppel against his seeking to avoid it for error.”) (quoting Freeman on Judgments
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Restitution ¶20 Citing Del Rio Land, –10, –06 (1973), Jackson White argues that the “voluntary” payment by DOS renders this appeal moot, and contends that, even if the appeal is not moot, it should not be required to refund any monies already paid by DOS.
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Aracaju v. True North Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Aracaju v. True North Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶17 Fourth, relatedly, Dale cites Del Rio Land, P.2d 1003 (1973), for the proposition that his actions were not voluntary and therefore his appeal should be allowed.
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
and Loan Ass'n, -49 , -45 (App.1977); Del Rio Land
Cely v. Deconcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin & Lacy, P.C. 803 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cely v. Deconcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin & Lacy, P.C. 803 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Esplendido Apartments v. Metropolitan Condominium Ass'n 778 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1989
Esplendido Apartments v. Metropolitan Condominium Ass'n 778 P.2d 1221 Ariz. 1989
Vinson v. Marton & Associates 764 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Vinson v. Marton & Associates 764 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In Del Rio Land, , the Arizona Supreme Court considered whether the appellant had *5 acquiesced in a judgment by failing to post a supersedeas bond to preclude enforcement of a judgment for specific performance requiring it to sell certain real property under specified terms.
Rowe v. Rowe 744 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Rowe v. Rowe 744 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Rosen v. Rae 647 P.2d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Rosen v. Rae 647 P.2d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
We agree with appellees that the “acceptance of benefits” doctrine estops Appellants from maintaining this appeal and that their reliance on the rationale of Del Rio Land, , is misplaced.
Arizona Downs v. Superior Court of Ariz. 623 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1981
Arizona Downs v. Superior Court of Ariz. 623 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1981
In a somewhat similar situation in Del Rio Land, , we held that compliance with a court order rather than risking a contempt citation was not to be considered voluntary, and an appeal would be allowed despite the fact of compliance with the order.
Scafidi v. Puckett 578 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Scafidi v. Puckett 578 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Del Rio Land, Inc. v. Haumont 574 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Del Rio Land, Inc. v. Haumont 574 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Del Rio Land, , P.2d 1003 (1973).
Anderson v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 571 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Anderson v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 571 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
650 , 136 S.W.2d 289 (1939); cf. Del Rio Land
State v. Gastelo 532 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1975
State v. Gastelo 532 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1975
Del Rio Land, , , 227 Pac.
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Company v. Smith 519 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Company v. Smith 519 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
In Del Rio Land, , the Arizona Supreme Court recently defined the words “subject to” as meaning “burdened with” in the context of real property sales.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by