BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. De Meo, 227 Ariz. 192

Bank of New York Mellon holds a note secured by a deed of trust on real property leased by J.S. to De Meo for a term beginning August 31, 2005 with a purchase option that expired August 31, 2006.
After J.S. defaulted, the Bank obtained the property at a trustee's sale and recorded the trustee's deed on August 18, 2009.
On August 19, 2009, the Bank sent a five-day written notice to vacate to J.S. and Occupants, warning of eviction if not vacated.
De Meo remained a tenant (month-to-month) and was served with the FED action on December 1, 2009, following the November 24, 2009 FED filing.
De Meo argued the PTFA required a 90-day written notice; the FED action proceeded more than 90 days after the initial notice, prompting appellate consideration and reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
PTFA 90-day notice requirement in writing	De Meo argues the Bank failed to provide a 90-day written notice.	Bank contends no written 90-day notice is required under PTFA.	PTFA requires a 90-day written notice before eviction.
Mootness of the appeal	De Meo's appeal remains live despite vacated premises.	Bank argues mootness since De Meo no longer resides on the property.	Not moot; exceptions for public importance or repetition apply, so review proceeds.

Alton v. Tower Capital Co., Inc., 123 Ariz. 602 (1979) (if proper written notice not given, eviction judgment is improper)
BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (2004) (statutory interpretation requires context and ordinary meaning)
Thompson v. Harris, 9 Ariz. App. 341, 452 P.2d 122 (1969) (mootness considerations in appellate review)
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera, 200 Ariz. 457, 27 P.3d 814 (App. 2001) (exception to mootness for issues capable of repetition yet evading review)
Parkinson v. Guadalupe Pub. Safety Ret. Bd., 214 Ariz. 274, 151 P.3d 557 (App. 2007) (court will not consider issues raised only in amicus briefs)