Cited by

decision) (citing and quoting Provident); Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ¶ 34 (App. 2014) (explaining that the court of appeals is bound by Provident and restating the holding in Provident); De Anza Land & Leisure Corp., 137 Ariz. at 265 8 JOSE R. AROCA, ET AL. V. TANG INVESTMENT Opinion of the Court (discu

Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ¶ 37 (App. 2014), as corrected (Nov.

See Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ¶ 28 (App. 2014) (rejecting equitable estoppel claim where initial activities "were not necessarily inconsistent" with later positions).

See Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 158, ¶¶ 8, 16 (App. 2014) (as corrected) (distinguishing between actual and constructive notice and explaining that “[a] recorded deed provides constructive notice.”).

§ 12-341.01(A); Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ¶ 38 (2014).

Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ¶ 38 (2014).

ribed the property involved, and stated the amount of indebtedness” was sufficient 9 DEUTSCHE BANK v. PHEASANT GROVE Decision of the Court to ‘apprise[] third parties of the nature and substance of the rights claimed’ under the deed of trust, and thus imparted constructive notice)); Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ¶ 23 (App. 2014) (“[W]e do not strictly enforce every element of a deed of trust; rather, we examine the Deeds of Trust Act ‘as a whole’ to determine whether the legislature intended fo

See 3502 Lending, ¶ 16 (App. 2010) (holding that “[n]otice of facts and circumstances which would put a [person] of ordinary prudence and intelligence on inquiry” constitutes constructive notice of the facts a reasonably diligent inquiry would reveal); Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“Constructive notice contrasts with actual notice .

Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ¶ 38 (App. 2014).

See Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc. , , 160, ¶ 27, , 1281 (App. 2014) (reliance is just one element of the defense of estoppel and the party seeking estoppel must establish both actual reliance and that such reliance was reasonable); Contempo Constr.

Co. of Ariz., ¶ 9 (2012)); Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ¶¶ 8−9 (App. 2014) (“[T]he Arizona’s Deeds of Trust Act, A.R.S.

See Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ¶ 29 (App. 2014) (estoppel should not be applied when a party was on notice that further inquiry may be warranted).