Cited by

DISCUSSION ¶7 This court reviews the entry of summary judgment de novo, “viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion,” ¶ 12 (2003), to determine “whether any genuine issues of material fact exist,” Brookover v. Roberts Enter., Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2007).

This court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo, “viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion,” ¶ 12 (2003), to determine “whether any genuine issues of material fact exist,” Brookover v. Roberts Enter., Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2007).

¶ 12 (2003) (citing cases).

¶ 12 (2003); KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins.

¶ 12 (2003); Squaw Peak Cmty.

¶ 37 (2003) (“[A] lessee’s failure to strictly comply with the terms of a lease’s option to renew .

The entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, “viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion,” ¶ 12 (2003), to determine “whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the [superior] court properly applied the law,” Brookover v. Roberts Enters., Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2007).

¶ 12 (2003).2 A. Debt Secured by the Deeds of Trust.

See Miller v. Long Family P’ship, ¶ 34 (2003) (stating that, because time is of the essence in an option contract, it should be included as an inherit term, even if not expressly stated).

¶ 12 (2003); Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, ¶ 13 (2002).

¶ 12 (2003) (citing Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Tr.

The court “view[s] the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion,” ¶ 12 (2003), to determine “whether any genuine issues of material fact exist,” Brookover v. Roberts Enter., Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2007).

2 DISCUSSION ¶9 We review the entry of summary judgment de novo, “viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” ¶ 12 (2003).