Cited by

And in Mid Kansas Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp., our supreme court recognized that “the purchaser at a foreclosure sale of a junior lien takes subject to all senior liens.”

Corp., ("[E]ven if a merger would otherwise occur at law, contrary intent or equitable considerations may preclude this result under appropriate circumstances."); ("It is also the law that a mortgagee has an Election in equity to prevent a merger and keep the mortgage ali

Corp., (reaffirming that "the election statute does not preclude a subsequent foreclosure action after judgment on the debt, as is the case in some other states").1 ¶22 Because the Arizona Supreme Court has expressly held that a mortgage may be enforced by a judgment and a subsequent foreclosure, and

Corp., (“[T]he purchaser at a foreclosure sale of a junior lien takes subject to all senior liens .

Corp., see also Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc., (citing Mid Kansas for the proposition that “if [a] deed of trust holder purchases property at [a] trustee’s sale, its interest in [the] deed of trust merges in the fee and [the] deed of trust

Corp., (stating that statute’s words “are to be given their ordinary meaning, unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended”).

Corp., (where deficiency statute does not apply, creditor remains free to waive security and bring debt action on note).

Corp., , (“While we can infer that the legislature’s primary intent was to protect individual homeowners rather than commercial developers, neither the statutory text of [§ 33-814(G) ] nor legislative history evinces an intent to exclude any other type of mortgagor.”).

d put personal belongings in the premises; (3) receive mail at the premises; (4) pay utilities on the premises; and (5) no restriction on use of the premises.” ¶ 8 , , to support their arguments.

Corp., 167 Ariz. 122, 126, Emily Gildar, Arizona’s Anti-Deficiency Statutes: Ensuring Consumer Protection in a Foreclosure Crisis, 42 Ariz. St.

Corp., , Emily Gildar, Arizona’s Anti-Deficiency Statutes: Ensuring Consumer Protection in a Foreclosure Crisis, 42 Ariz. St.

Corp., , (noting that equitable considerations may preclude merger).

Corp., (noting that equitable considerations may preclude merger).

M & I , to argue that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute does not bar its claim.

Corp., , (internal citations omitted).

Corp., , ) (additional citation omitted).