Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Norcutt, 274 P.3d 1204.

28 citing documents.

Pioneer Title v. Larue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Pioneer Title v. Larue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Sourcecorp, ¶ 12 (2012).
Tortosa Homeowners Association v. Davis Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Tortosa Homeowners Association v. Davis Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
2“Equitable subrogation is ‘the substitution of another person in the place of a creditor, so that the person in whose favor it is exercised succeeds to the rights of the creditor in relation to the debt.’” Sourcecorp, ().
US Bank v. Adrian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
US Bank v. Adrian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Bank of America v. Felco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bank of America v. Felco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶12 Equitable subrogation is “the substitution of another person in the place of a creditor, so that the person in whose favor it is exercised succeeds to the rights of the creditor in relation to the debt.” Sourcecorp, ¶ 5, (adopting the approach of Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 7.6(a)).
US Bank, N.A. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 398 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
US Bank, N.A. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 398 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(Emphasis added); Sourcecorp, ¶¶ 10, 12 (2012) (adopting Restatement § 7.6).
Jp Morgan v. Mgm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jp Morgan v. Mgm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ANALYSIS I. Equitable Subrogation ¶27 “Equitable subrogation is ‘the substitution of another person in the place of a creditor, so that the person in whose favor it is exercised succeeds to the rights of the creditor in relation to the debt.’” Sourcecorp, ¶ 5, (quoting 13 The trial court rejected this finding by the jury, after concluding the court had “erred in instructing the jury that Chase had the burden to prove that it did not have unclean hands.” 14 A trial court is not bound by an adviso
Markham Contracting Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Co. 379 P.3d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Markham Contracting Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Co. 379 P.3d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
229 Ariz. at 271, ¶ 2, .
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sourcecorp, ¶ 5 (2012) (as amended).
State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Criticized State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
5 STATE v. BURKE Opinion of the Court remainder of the court’s analysis.”), declined to follow on other grounds by Sourcecorp, P.3d 1204 (2012).
Haci v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Haci v. Bmo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
I. The Trial Court’s Application of Equitable Subrogation ¶7 Equitable subrogation is “the substitution of another person in place of a creditor, so that the person in whose favor it is exercised succeeds to the rights of the creditor in relation to the debt.” Sourcecorp, ¶ 5 (2012) ().
Reyes v. Frank's Service & Trucking, LLC 334 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Reyes v. Frank's Service & Trucking, LLC 334 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(clear language of a statute is given its usual meaning unless impossible or absurd consequences result), abrogated on other grounds by Sourcecorp
The Weitz Company v. Nicholas Heth Ariz. 2014
Weitz Co. v. Heth 333 P.3d 23 Ariz. 2014
The Weitz Company v. Nicholas Heth Ariz. 2014
See Sourcecorp, ¶ 12, (adopting the Restatement approach).
Weitz Co. v. Heth 333 P.3d 23 Ariz. 2014
See Sourcecorp, , 273 ¶ 12, (adopting the Restatement approach).
Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Equitable subrogation allows “[o]ne who fully performs an obligation of another, secured by a mortgage, [to] become[] by subrogation the owner of the obligation and the mortgage to the extent necessary to prevent unjust enrichment.” Sourcecorp, ¶ 5 , (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 7.6(a) (“Restatement”)).