SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership
228 Ariz. 271
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In 1992 Taiyo Development U.S.A., as sole owner of The Crossings, conveyed the Baseline/Crismon intersection with the Corner excluded; later deeds still excluded the Corner.
- Augusta Ranch ultimately held the Corner via conveyances that expressly excluded it; A.R. Development later bought most south-of-Baseline property but believed the Corner was not included.
- City of Mesa later conveyed the Corner to A.R. Development by special warranty, and a title policy insured the transfer.
- In 2003-2004, disputes emerged about who owned the Corner, leading to SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors’ quiet-title action and Augusta Ranch’s counterclaims for wrongful recording, slander of title, trespass, and conversion.
- The trial court granted some title-related relief to Augusta Ranch but dismissed damages evidence; various appeals followed, including issues about reformation, damages under A.R.S. § 33-420, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed some title relief for Augusta Ranch, reversed other wrongful-recording outcomes, remanded for nominal damages in trespass/conversion, and remanded to reconsider attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reformation of the 1997 A.R. Development conveyance | SWC seeks reformation based on mutual mistake that Corner was not conveyed | Augusta Ranch and A.R. Development understood Corner excluded; no mutual mistake | No reformation; Corner not conveyed and no mutual mistake proven |
| Liability under A.R.S. § 33-420(A) for wrongful recording | Augusta Ranch entitled to damages as owner/beneficial title holder | Augusta Ranch lacked title at recording times; cannot be owner/beneficial holder | Reversed; Augusta Ranch cannot claim §33-420(A) damages against SWC/Cal Bank/A.R. Development |
| Liability under A.R.S. § 33-420(C) for failing to release/correct records | Failure to release/correct after notice violated §33-420(C) | Recordings not frivolous/groundless; unclear belief of owners | Liability not established for SWC; damages reversed to $1,000 each against A.R. Development and Cal Bank; others affirmed (subject to damages remand) |
| Damages and loss-of-use evidence under § 33-420(C) and discovery rules | Lost rent/value from use of Corner supported | Damages not properly disclosed; speculative evidence | Damages for loss of use vacated; remand for $1,000 statutory damages; require proper disclosure for any further damages |
| Punitive damages for slander of title and related claims | Defendants acted with evil mind; intentional misrecording | No clear and convincing proof of evil mind; conduct not את egregious enough | Affirmed summary judgment denying punitive damages; no clear and convincing evidence of evil mind |
Key Cases Cited
- Evergreen West, Inc. v. Boyd, 167 Ariz. 614, 810 P.2d 612 (App. 1991) (Arizona App. 1991) (groundless recording requires frivolous claim or lack of credibility)
- Pilot Props., Inc. v. City of Tempe, 22 Ariz. App. 356, 527 P.2d 515 (1974) (Arizona App. 1974) (slander of title elements including damages need proof)
- Richey v. Western Pac. Dev. Corp., 140 Ariz. 597, 684 P.2d 169 (App. 1984) (Arizona App. 1984) (owner/beneficial title holder concept for §33-420(A))
- Tamf v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, 169 Ariz. 173, 818 P.2d 158 (App. 1991) (Arizona App. 1991) (trespass damages and proof requirements)
- Campbell Estates, Inc. v. Bates, 21 Ariz. App. 162, 517 P.2d 515 (1973) (Arizona App. 1973) (punitive damages and land disputes framework)
- Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 726 P.2d 565 (1986) (Arizona Supreme Court 1986) (punitive damages require evil mind; not just ordinary disputes)