Cited by

§ 12-1177(A); (Title should not be litigated in an FED as doing so “would convert [the FED action] into a quiet title action and defeat its purpose as a summary remedy.”).

§ 12–1177(A); –35 (1996).

Our courts have routinely rejected Overly’s argument because it “would convert a forcible detainer action into a quiet title action and defeat its purpose as a summary remedy.”

See Montano, 250 Ariz. at 404–05, ¶ 9; (framing occupant “remain[ing] in possession of property after termination of his interest under a deed of trust [a]s a tenant at will or sufferance” under A.R.S.

§ 12-1177(A); (noting that litigating title "would convert a forcible detainer action into a quiet title action and defeat its purpose as a summary remedy").

At best, the argument presented was a dispute as to title[,] which is not the appropriate subject of an eviction action, .

To find otherwise “would convert a forcible detainer action into a quiet title action and defeat its purpose as a summary remedy.”

forcible detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.”)

§ 12-1177(A) (“[In an FED action], the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.”)

§ 12-1177(A) (“On trial of an action of [FED], the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.”); (holding that allowing a person to challenge title in an FED action “would convert a forcible detainer action into a quiet title action and defeat its purpose as a summary remedy”).

¶9 our supreme court held § 12-1177(A) applies to an FED action brought by a party that purchased a home at a trustee’s sale.

§ 12-1177(A) (“[In an FED action], the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.”); (noting that “the prohibition against inquiring into the merits of title under § 12-1177(A) in a forcible detainer action is alive and well”).

¶ 8 (App. 1999) (“Clearly, one cannot try title in a forcible detainer action.” ()); ¶ 21 (App. 2004) (“The only issue to be decided in [a forcible detainer] action is the right of actual possession.

§ 12-1177(A); see also Cu/ , (litigating title in FED action “would convert a forcible detainer action into a quiet title action and defeat its purpose as a summary remedy”).

(purpose of FED action is to provide summary, speedy remedy for landlord), approved, P.2d 259 (1996).

§ 12- 1177(A); Curtis v. Morris (“Curtis II”)

JOHN Decision of the Court action), aff’d by P.2d 259 (1996).

y litigated in an FED action; “[o]n the trial of an action of forcible entry or forcible detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.” Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-1177 (A); (stating that title cannot be an issue in an FED action), approved, P.2d 259 (1996).

§ 12-1177(A) (2014); -35, -60 (1996).