CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, 233 Ariz. 355

Loop 101 borrowed $15.6M from MidFirst in 2007; loan secured by deed of trust; four guarantors signed guaranties. After default, MidFirst assigned the loan to CSA, which credit‑bid $6.15M at a trustee’s sale; about $11.2M remained on the loan. CSA sued for a deficiency.
The deed of trust and guaranty contained language purporting to waive any right to a fair‑market‑value hearing under A.R.S. § 33‑814(A) and to treat the trustee’s sale price as conclusively the fair market value.
Loop 101 and the guarantors requested a § 33‑814(A) determination; the trial court held a hearing and found fair market value = $12.5M, eliminating any deficiency.
CSA moved for summary judgment arguing the parties had contractually waived the § 33‑814(A) entitlement; the trial court denied CSA’s motions, granted Loop 101’s cross‑motion, and entered judgment for Loop 101 and the guarantors.
CSA appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding the statutory fair‑market‑value protection under § 33‑814(A) cannot be waived in advance and that the trial court’s valuation and procedural rulings were correct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (CSA)	Defendant's Argument (Loop 101/Guarantors)	Held
Whether parties may waive the § 33‑814(A) right to a judicial fair‑market‑value hearing	Waiver language in deed and guaranty clearly relinquishes right; waiver enforces contract terms	Statutory right is protected by the deed‑of‑trust statutory scheme and cannot be waived in advance	§ 33‑814(A) protection cannot be waived; waiver unenforceable
Whether trial court’s § 33‑814(A) valuation ($12.5M) was supported by evidence	Valuation relied on improper evidence and improperly discounted REO sales	Court considered multiple appraisals and evidence; CSA introduced some of the challenged evidence	Valuation sustained; substantial evidence supports $12.5M finding
Whether prior judge’s recusal required vacatur of prior rulings	Recusal created appearance of impropriety, so prior rulings should be vacated	No evidence of impropriety; recusal was timely and permissible	Denial of motion to vacate affirmed; no appearance of impropriety shown
Timeliness and availability of CSA’s summary judgment motion after valuation	Motion timely and should have been granted if waiver effective	Motion was untimely and, in any event, waiver is invalid so summary judgment not warranted	Even assuming timeliness, denial proper because waiver is invalid

Verma v. Stuhr, 223 Ariz. 144 (App. 2009) (defines waiver and limits when statutory rights may be waived)
McClellan Mortg. Co. v. Storey, 146 Ariz. 185 (App. 1985) (statutory protections can sometimes be waived; discusses limits)
Patton v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 118 Ariz. 473 (1978) (deed‑of‑trust statutes strictly construed in favor of borrower)
In re Krohn, 203 Ariz. 205 (2002) (explains policy placing risk of below‑market trustee’s sale on mortgagee; cites Restatement support)
Mid‑First Bank v. Chase, 230 Ariz. 366 (App. 2012) (trustee’s sale price may not reflect fair market value; supports § 33‑814 purpose)
Brown v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 194 Ariz. 85 (App. 1998) (a party that introduces evidence cannot later complain about its admission)
Flood Control Dist. v. Fling, 147 Ariz. 292 (App. 1985) (appellate court will not reweigh conflicting testimony)
Sholes v. Fernando, 228 Ariz. 455 (App. 2011) (appellate review will not disturb valuation supported by substantial evidence)
Zuniga v. Superior Court (Bernstein), 77 Ariz. 222 (1954) (judge may recuse on own motion even if not legally compelled)
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona, 211 Ariz. 282 (2005) (discusses permissible judicial recusal on non‑compelled grounds)