Bt Capital v. Td Service Co. of Arizona
229 Ariz. 299
| Ariz. | 2012Background
- BT Capital sought title to commercial Chandler property secured by PCF's deed of trust and sued the trustee (TD) and PCF for title and damages after a June 2009 trustee's sale.
- TD conducted two sales on June 15, 2009; a second sale occurred after BT indicated earlier notice of a later time.
- BT claims TD erroneously voided or refused to deliver a trustee's deed after BT's balance payment was tendered.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PCF and TD in Feb 2010, ruling the 3:30 p.m. sale void and BT's tort theories inadequately pled.
- BT pursued appellate relief; TD later conducted a July 2010 sale in which PCF acquired the property and a trustee's deed was recorded.
- Arizona Court of Appeals initially held the 2010 sale did not moot BT's appeal, but the Supreme Court granted review to resolve statewide questions about deeds of trust statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 2010 trustee's sale moot BT's claims? | BT: 2010 sale did not negate earlier issues; remains viable. | PCF/TD: 2010 sale mooted BT's appeal and entitles PCF to title free of BT's claims. | Yes, moot; 2010 sale moot BT's claims. |
| Does A.R.S. § 33-811(C) or lis pendens affect the 2010 sale’s effect on BT's rights? | BT: lis pendens preserves title claims against PCF despite 2010 sale. | Defendants: § 33-811(C) waives defenses; lis pendens does not create priority over deed of trust. | BT's lis pendens does not defeat 2010 deed; § 33-811(C) waiver applies. |
| Can BT state a damages claim or statutory/contractual claim post-2010 sale? | BT: Vinson v. Marton allows damages where sale mooted specific performance. | Damages claims are not viable; statutes do not grant damages to BT in these circumstances. | No viable damages or statutory/contract claims; damages not recoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sedona Private Prop. Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona, 192 Ariz. 126 (App. 1998) (case mootness when sale completes defeats appeal outcome)
- In re Vasquez, 228 Ariz. 357 (2011) (deed-of-trust scheme governed by statutes)
- In re Krohn, 203 Ariz. 205 (2002) (adequate procedural basis to challenge a sale; pre-sale defenses)
- Vinson v. Marton & Assocs., 159 Ariz. 1 (App. 1988) (damages may be recoverable when specific performance is mooted)
- Kelly v. Perry, 111 Ariz. 382 (1975) (lis pendens does not confer priority over existing deeds of trust)