Cited by

Bank, N.A., ¶¶ 1, 8 (2012) (holding “Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to prove its authority or ‘show the note’ before the trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure”).

Bank, N.A., ¶ 8 (2012) (citing A.R.S.

Bank, N.A., ¶ 10 (2012), and the validity of a contract is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo, ¶ 10 (App. 2019).

Bank, N.A., ¶ 10 (2012).

Bank, N.A., A beneficiary is “[s]omeone who is initially entitled to enforce a promise, whether that person is the promisee or a third party.” Beneficiary, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).

Bank, N.A., ¶ 12 (2012))).

Bank, N.A., , 587 ¶ 10, (“The note is a contract that evidences the loan and the obligor’s duty to repay.

Bank, N.A., ¶ 11, (denying a homeowner’s request to require 6 STAUFFER v. PREMIER et al. Opinion of the Court B. Rule 12(g) ¶14 The Stauffers argue the provisions of Rule 12(g

Bank, N.A., ¶¶ 11–12, (allowing a trustee to proceed with a non-judicial foreclosure without first requiring the beneficiary to prove ownership of the underlying note), especially because Laughlin was enforcing the action as an agent and for the benefit of the private investors, whose names and fract

Bank, N.A., ¶ 12 , ( , 359 n. 1, ¶ 4, , 1055 n. 1 (2011)).

Bank, N.A., ¶ 1 , that the trial court properly granted summary judgment because Chase and CRC were, not required to prove their authority or “show the note” before commencing the nonjudicial foreclosure of the Waltners’ property.