Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Patton v. FIRST FED. SAV. & LOAN ASS'N, ETC., 578 P.2d 152.

62 citing documents.

Tacker v. New Residential Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
& Loan Ass’n of Phoenix, LeDesema v. Pioneer Nat’l Title Ins.
Lavelle Bridges v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC Ariz. 2022
Maria Carmen Zubia v. David Shapiro Ariz. 2018
Maria Carmen Zubia v. David Shapiro Ariz. 2018
& Loan Ass’n of Phx., we must give effect to § 33-811(C)’s express language, which requires enjoining the sale as a prerequisite to any claim arising out of the sale, see BT Capital, LLC, 229 Ariz. at 301 ¶ 14 (rejecting interpretation that would render statute ineffective).
Beck v. Hy-Tech Performance, Inc. 340 P.3d 433 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Beck v. Hy-Tech Performance, Inc. 340 P.3d 433 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
& Loan Ass’n of Phoenix, , (“Unlawfully withholding property from a person entitled to the possession of the property is a kind of conversion.”).
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
Morgan AZ Financial, L.L.C. v. Gotses 326 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Morgan AZ Financial, L.L.C. v. Gotses 326 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
& Loan Ass’n of Phx.
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
& Loan Ass’n of Phx., (“It is the duty of the court as society’s conscience to determine whether the acts complained of can be considered sufficiently extreme and outrageous to state a claim for relief.”).
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
& Loan Ass’n of Phx., (affirming the grant of summary judgment on an IIED claim in favor of a lender because the lender’s actions, although harsh and upsetting to the borrower, were “within the realm of acceptable business practice” and did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct necessary for
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
& Loan Ass’n of Phx.
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
& Loan Ass’n, , 477, , 156 (1978) (“[Ljenders must strictly comply with the Deed of Trust statutes, and the statutes and the Deeds of Trust must be strictly construed in favor of the borrower” because the “Deed of Trust Statutes thus strip borrowers of many of the protections available under a mortgage.”).
John Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank Ariz. 2012
John Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank Ariz. 2012
& Loan Ass’n of Phx., A.R.S.
Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. 277 P.3d 781 Ariz. 2012
Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. 277 P.3d 781 Ariz. 2012
& Loan Ass’n of Phx., , A.R.S.
Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
& Loan Ass’n of Phoenix
In Re Krohn 52 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2002
& Loan Ass'n, (emphasis added).
Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing International, Inc. 905 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Systems Leasing International, Inc. 905 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
& Loan Ass’n of Phoenix
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
and Loan Ass’n of Phoenix
Schaeffer v. Chapman 861 P.2d 611 Ariz. 1993
& Loan Ass’n, , 477, , 156 (1978).
C S & W Contractors, Inc. v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 852 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association
Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. 804 P.2d 1310 Ariz. 1991
Security Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Fenton 806 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Security Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Fenton 806 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Real parties in interest’s reliance on Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Assoc, of Phoenix, , and upon Crossman v. Meek, 27 Ariz.App.
Ten Z's Inc. v. Perry 801 P.2d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. 787 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. 787 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
and Loan Ass’n., , (“The Deed of Trust statutes thus strip borrowers of many of the protections available under a mortgage.”) Our analysis may have limited application because Mid Kansas was the only lender.
MacIborski v. Chase Service Corp. 779 P.2d 1296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See generally Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, , 477, , 156 (1978)
Eardley v. Greenberg 774 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
& Loan Ass’n, , 476, , 155 (1978); LeDesma v. Pioneer Nat’l Title Ins.
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Clark 759 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1988
Compare Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Phoenix, , 476, , 155 (1978) (trustee’s sale held without compliance with statutory notice requirements of notice to the trustor is "void”) -84 (Alaska 1986) (noncompliance with trustee’s sale notice rules made sale “voidable").
Main I Ltd. Partnership v. Venture Capital Construction & Development Corp. 741 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
& Loan Ass’n, , 476, , 155 (1978); LeDesma v. Pioneer Nat’l Title Ins.
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, , 478-79, , 157-58 (1978); Harn, 15 Ariz.App.
Lindsey v. Dempsey 735 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Lindsey v. Dempsey 735 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
There are several cases in which the courts have determined, as a matter of law, that the conduct complained of was not so extreme or outrageous as to require submission of the issue to a jury, Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Phoenix, , , Cluff v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, supra, or in which the courts determined that the issue had been submitted to the jury erroneously, Midas Muffler Shop v. Ellison, supra
Focal Point, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Arizona, Inc. 746 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Focal Point, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Arizona, Inc. 746 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Patton v. First Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n. of Phoenix
Helfond v. Stamper 716 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
In Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, , the supreme court affirmed the trial court’s granting of defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress, , : “Even if the
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Our supreme court considered due-on-sale clauses in Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association
Larson-Hegstrom & Associates, Inc. v. Jeffries 701 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Pima County v. Ina/Oldfather 4.7 Acres Trust 2292 700 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Pima County v. Ina/Oldfather 4.7 Acres Trust 2292 700 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by