Cited by

do not obtain in the context of a forced sale,” ¶ 27 (2002) (citation omitted), and forced sale prices “should not be given much weight” when determining fair market value, see CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC, 233 Ariz. at 363, ¶ 26.

¶11 A deed of trust, however, “is a creature of statutes.” ¶ 9 (2002); see also A.R.S.

decree or judgment passes “absolute title to the property to the purchaser thereof, but the conveyance shall not affect the right, title or interest of any person other than the parties to the conveyance, decree or judgment, and those claiming under them”).3 ¶7 The Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) (1997), which Arizona courts follow absent contrary authority, provides added support for our interpretation of § 33- 727(B).

212–14, ¶¶ 18, 29–32, 38 (2002) (setting aside a deed of trust sale on the basis that the bid price was grossly inadequate).

The “deed of trust scheme is a creature of statutes,” ¶ 9 (2002), and a trustor’s rights and any related claims against the trustee are controlled by those statutes.

The “deed of trust scheme is a creature of statutes,” ¶ 9 (2002), and a 3 HSBC v. VAN BUREN Decision of the Court trustor’s rights and any related claims against the trustee are controlled by those statutes.

¶ 10, see generally, Gary E. Lawyer, Note, The Deed of Trust: Arizona’s Alternative to the Real Property Mortgage, 15 Ariz. L. Rev. 194 (1973).

See, ¶ 38, (holding trustee’s sale may be set aside for gross inadequacy of bid price).

¶ 18 , (Arizona courts do not follow the Restatement in the face of “legislative enactment” to the contrary).

clear that the legislature determined the risk of a below-market sale price belonged with the mortgagee and not the mortgagor.” , 212 ¶ 28

¶ 8, (“[D]eed of trust sales are conducted on a contract theory under the power of sale authority of the trustee.”).

208 ¶ 8, (“[D]eed of trust sales are conducted on a contract theory under the power of sale authority of the trustee.”).

¶9 The “deed of trust scheme is a creature of statutes.” ¶ 4, ( ¶ 9, ).

Because the “deed of trust scheme is a creature of statutes,” ¶ 9, our role is entirely one of statutory construction.1 Put differently, we are called upon not to determine whether there ought to be a law providing relief to Vasquez, but what current Arizona statutes provide regarding the certified questions.

In a supplemental reply PCF further argued that the sale was void because the purchase price was grossly inadequate, , and Millennium Rock Mortg.

¶ 8 , (“[D]eed of trust sales are conducted on a contract theory under the power of sale authority of the trustee.”); , (“Deeds of trust are creatures of statute in Arizona.”).

We find this argument unpersuasive in light of our decision in Krohn v. Sweetheart Props., Ltd., P.3d 774 (2002).

¶ 18 , (stating the Arizona Supreme Court has long followed the rule that it will follow the Restatement when not bound by previous decisions or legislative enactment); Southwest Pet Prod., Inc., v. Koch Indus., 273 F.Supp.2d 1041 , 1052 n. 17 (D.Ariz.2003) (stating reliance on Restatement Third is in keeping wit

¶ 29 , (deed of trust sale can be set aside for gross inadequacy of price).

See Krohn v. Sweetheart Props., Ltd., ¶ 17 , (‘Windfall profits, like those reaped by bidders paying grossly inadequate prices at foreclosure sales, do not serve the public interest and do no more than legally enrich speculators.”).

(mortgage foreclosure sale may be set aside if bid is grossly inadequate when compared to fair market value of property); Bus.