Sitton v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
233 Ariz. 215
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Sitton sued for quiet title and monetary damages under A.R.S. § 33-420(A) based on allegedly false assignments and notices recorded before a trustee’s sale.
- The deed of trust naming SFG Mortgage, First American Title Insurance, and MERS as beneficiary/nominee, identified MERS as holding legal title but with the right to exercise interests.
- In 2007-2011 a series of assignments and notices were recorded, including August 2010 assignments to Deutsche Bank and May 2011 substitutions and notices of trustee’s sale.
- Sitton’s loan modification halted the August 2010 sale, but default and foreclosure preparations continued, leading to 2012 trustee’s sale after an extended TRO was quashed.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Deutsche Bank and Specialized, and Sitton appealed; the issue centered on whether § 33-811(C) barred title claims but not § 33-420(A) monetary claims.
- Arizona appellate decision held Sitton had standing under § 33-420(A) but the misstatements in the recorded documents were immaterial as a matter of law, warranting summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under § 33-420(A)? | Sitton possessed an owner’s interest and could sue under § 33-420(A). | Sitton lacked standing and claims were time-barred or outside scope of § 33-420(A). | Sitton had standing under § 33-420(A). |
| Do challenged documents fall within § 33-420(A) scope? | Assignments and notices affecting real property interests are within § 33-420(A). | The challenged documents may be outside the statute’s scope or not actionable under § 33-420(A). | Yes, the challenged documents fall within § 33-420(A). |
| Timeliness of § 33-420(A) claims under statutes of limitation? | Claims were timely under the four-year limit of § 12-550 rather than a one-year limit. | Claims were time-barred under § 12-541(5) as a liability created by statute. | Claims were timely under § 12-550 (not § 12-541(5)). |
| Materiality of misstatements in recorded assignments? | The misstatements regarding assignment dates and assignor identity could be material and actionable. | Misstatements were immaterial to Sitton’s actions and thus not actionable under § 33-420(A). | Misstatements were immaterial to Sitton as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- BT Capital, LLC v. TD Serv. Co. of Ariz., 229 Ariz. 299 (Ariz. 2012) (waiver of defenses after failed injunctions to enjoin sale)
- Mabery Ranch, Co. v. State, 216 Ariz. 233 (App. 2007) (distinguishing damages vs. quiet title effects of sale)
- Stauffer v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 230 Ariz. 8 (App. 2012) (standing under § 33-420(A) and scope of covered documents)
- Gulf Homes, Inc. v. Gonzales, 139 Ariz. 1 (App. 1983) (penalty or forfeiture—limitations on statutory liability)
- Caruthers v. Underhill, 230 Ariz. 513 (App. 2012) (materiality standard for misrepresentation)
- Vinson v. Marion & Assocs., 159 Ariz. 1 (App. 1988) (statutory liability and damages framework)
- Madison v. Groseth, 230 Ariz. 8 (App. 2012) (waiver of damages against purchasers after sale)