Fernandez v. Houseopoly, 1 CA-CV 23-0461

In 2016, Lewis Lowry conveyed property in Bullhead City, AZ to Melissa Ortega, secured by a deed of trust with Lowry as beneficiary.
In 2018, Fernandez purchased a 39% interest via a sewer assessment lien sale after Ortega failed to pay, receiving a Certificate of Sale.
Fernandez gave statutorily required sale notice to Ortega, but failed to give timely notice to Lowry (the deed of trust beneficiary) before applying for the Superintendent of Streets Deed (SOS deed).
Fernandez received and recorded the SOS deed in 2019, then later tried (unsuccessfully) to notify Lowry, who was deceased.
The remaining interest in the property was eventually transferred to John Lara, and a trustee’s sale was held in 2021, where Houseopoly acquired title purporting to include both parcels (including Fernandez’s portion).
Fernandez sued to quiet title to her parcel (Parcel B); trial court granted her summary judgment. Houseopoly appealed, arguing Fernandez’s SOS deed was void for failure to provide notice to Lowry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fernandez's failure to timely notify Lowry invalidated her SOS deed	Fernandez made good-faith efforts to notify all parties, so her interest is valid	Fernandez's failure to follow statutory notice to Lowry voids her SOS deed	Notice defect cannot be excused by good-faith; Fernandez's deed is voidable, not void, and the lower court erred in granting her summary judgment
Whether Houseopoly's trustee's sale extinguished Fernandez's interest	Trustee's sale could not pass Fernandez's interest since she held title via deed	Trustee’s sale properly conveyed whole property, extinguishing Fernandez’s interest	Trustee’s sale could not convey Fernandez’s parcel; trustee only had authority over the other parcel
Whether either party is entitled to summary judgment quieting title	Fernandez is rightful owner despite notice defect; Houseopoly’s claim is subordinate	Fernandez has no valid claim due to flawed notice; Houseopoly holds title free of her interest	Neither party entitled to summary judgment; case remanded for further proceedings
Whether subsequent notice to Lowry (after deed issuance) cured the notice defect	Subsequent efforts cured any defect	Statute requires strict compliance; cannot cure after the fact	Defect in notice cannot be retroactively cured under Arizona law

Nicholas v. Fowler, 89 Ariz. 7 (1960) (strict statutory compliance required for notice in lien foreclosure; defective notice renders deed voidable)
Hinz v. City of Phoenix, 118 Ariz. 161 (App. 1978) (assessment lien buyer acquires only the portion equal in value to the lien)
Brandt v. City of Yuma, 124 Ariz. 29 (App. 1979) (failure to give required notice invalidates deed as to that party)
In re Bisbee, 157 Ariz. 31 (1988) (recorded deed gives constructive notice to later purchasers)
Auman v. Auman, 134 Ariz. 40 (1982) (distinguishes between void and voidable decrees in title disputes)