Real Estate Law Archives | Dunaway Law Group, PLC

Motion for Summary Judgment

What is a Motion for Summary Judgment?

A Motion for Summary Judgment is a pleading filed where a party is asking the judge to rule the issues in dispute without the need for a trial. This is known as a summary judgment, in that it summarily ends the case before trial. The purpose of a trial is to have somebody — the judge or the jury — decide what the facts are. If the facts are not in dispute, there is no need for a trial.

There must be “no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”. This means that the undisputed facts presented in a particular case entitle one side to win because of the existing law relating to that issue.

If the facts are not in dispute, there is no need for a trial. Instead the party who believes that the undisputed facts compel a ruling in his or her favor will file a motion for summary judgment. The motion asks the court to consider the undisputed facts and apply the law to them, and argues that the law requires a judgment for the party bringing the motion.

When considering a Motion for Summary Judgment, judges must view all “the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root Inc. Under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c), a judgment can be entered only if the court finds that no genuine issues of material fact exist. If issues of material fact exist then the Motion for Summary Judgment should be dismissed in its entirety.

Courts are cautioned not to use summary judgment proceedings as a substitute for trials, the motion should be granted if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.

The burden of persuasion on the party seeking summary judgment is heavy and if there is any genuine issue as to a material factual issue is present, the motion should be denied.

Why File a motion for Summary Judgment?

Just because the opposing party filed a Motion for Summary Judgment it doesn’t mean that you did something wrong or they have an extraordinarily strong case where the judge will enter judgment in their favor without even going to trial.

It is quite common for Motions for Summary Judgment to be filed in Arizona cases. In part because a judge can rule on just one aspect of the case. This will allow the Movant to “chip away at the edges” of the lawsuit to see if they can get any of the claims for relief awarded.

Statement of Facts and Affidavit

A Statement of Facts and Affidavit(s) are submitted along with the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Statement of Facts– For the movant party, (person filing the MSJ) they must file a Statement of Facts providing the facts of the situation as they see them.
- Supporting Documents-In addition to just stating the “facts”, each Party must provide documentation that supports their statement facts. When it decides a motion for summary judgment, the court may only consider facts in the pretrial record, such as deposition testimony, affidavits, answers to written discovery requests, documents, etc. It cannot decide which side is more credible than the other. If the court has concerns about the credibility of witnesses or which side to believe, the case should be resolved in a trial.
Affidavit in Support– Both Parties must file an affidavit swearing that their statements are true.

responding to the motion

A response to the Motion for Summary Judgment must be filed within 30 days of receiving the motion. A response gives a party the opportunity to respond to the allegations made in the Motion for Summary Judgment. As part of the response, a statement of facts and affidavit must also be filed. Similar to the opposing party’s statement of facts, the respondent must cite a source for every statement made to the court. Doing this is incredibly tedious and time consuming!

RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

There are essentially three way a Judge can rule.

The Arizona Judge may rule 100% against the Party filed the Motion for Summary Judgement. If the Judge rules completely against the moving Party then the case will continue towards trial as if the Motion for Summary Judgment had never been filed!
The Arizona Judge may grant a partial summary judgment. Meaning the Judge ruled in favor of the moving Party on some of their claims but not on all of them. If a partial summary judgment is awarded, then a decision is made on the claims involved without holding a trial but the the remaining issues will continue towards trial.
The Arizona Judge may rule 100% in favor of the Party who filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. If this happens, if the Judge rules completely in favor of the party who filed the Motion for Summary Judgment then it is deemed to be a final judgment from which a party may appeal. On appeal, the appellate court can reverse the summary judgment and reinstate the claim in the Superior Court. However, this is rarely done because most summary judgments are upheld on appeal. Lastly, depending on the type of case, the winning party will likely be awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs.

If you need help from an Arizona attorney then contact the Dunaway Law Group at or 480-702-1610 or by sending us a message HERE.

The Dunaway Law Group provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking advice from professional advisers. The Firm limits its practice to the State of Arizona.

Discovery in Litigation

What is Discovery of Evidence?

During a lawsuit, each party has the opportunity to request formal “discovery” from the opposing party. The Discovery process is accomplished in a variety of ways, one is to send the opposing party a formal set of requests. These requests each seek different types of information from the opposing party.

Uniform and non-uniform Interrogatories:

Uniform interrogatories are a series of questions that are listed in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Depending on the type of case there is a set of different questions for the opposing party.

Non-uniform interrogatories are questions written by one party to a lawsuit. They send the questions to the opposing party and wait their response.

For example, a non-uniform interrogatory might ask, “Explain in detail why you did not make the payments as agreed”.

Request for Admissions:

“Requests for Admissions” allow one party to present the opposing party with statements that they must either Admit or Deny. They are written in a way so that the responding party must Admit the statement. If the responding party does not respond in the affirmative then they must provide a detailed explanation of why they denied the statement.

For example, a Request for Admissions could state,
“Admit that you entered into a written contract with the Plaintiff”.
“Admit that under the contract you were to pay the Plaintiff $5,000 a month.” “Admit that you did not pay the Plaintiff $5,000 per month”.

A party might deny one of the above statements of admissions by responding. “I deny that I was to pay Plaintiff $5,000 per month because I gave him a parcel of land as payment for the money borrowed.”

The effect of not responding to the Requests for Admissions is quite harsh. Under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) “A matter [request] is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to who the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.”

Why does it matter if the Requests for Admissions are deemed Admitted? Well, the party asking for the Admissions can say to the Judge, “Your honor, we’ve proven our case and you should rule in our favor. The Defendants admitted there was a written agreement to borrow money and they admitted that they did not pay back the money as agreed. [Refer to my example above].

Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b) does allow a party to file a Motion asking the court for permission to withdraw or amend the admission. “Subject to Rule 16, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on its merits.”

Request for Documents:

We are given the opportunity to request up to 10 different sets of documents from the opposing party. In Arizona, in the Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the responding party has 30 days to respond to the request for production of documents.

Lastly, similar to 26.1 initial discovery statements. These discovery requests are not submitted to the Court. In fact, the Judge will never see this information unless specifically and formally introduced as evidence at trial. So don’t worry about impressing the judge, we are simply exchanging all relevant information with the opposing party.

If you need help from an experienced Arizona attorney, then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-702-1608 or message us HERE.

* The information provided is informational only, does not constitute legal advice, and will not create an attorney-client or attorney-prospective client relationship. Additionally, the Dunaway Law Group, PLC limits its practice to the State of Arizona.

What is an Easement?

“An easement is the right to use real property owned by another person for a specific and limited use.”

how are easements created?

Easements are created by several methods but the two most common ways in which easements are created are by an “express” act or through use of the land.

1. Express Easement– An express easement is created by deed, contract, or other written agreement. Express easements are the fastest and most cost-effective way to establish access to a property.

2. Prescriptive Easement– Prescriptive easements are created through the circumstances and facts surrounding the use of land which indicates the parties intended for it to exist. In Arizona, implied easements are created after a dominant estate has used the servient estate’s property in a continuous, uninterrupted and open manner for more than 10 years. There is not an official contract or written agreement for prescriptive easements.

Arizona law (A.R.S. § 33-2401) recognizes easements that may be requested by a landlocked owner who is surrounded by land owned by the state (of Arizona) or any political subdivision of the state, and states that “Notwithstanding any other law, reasonable access to private property shall not be denied by this state or any political subdivision of this state.”

Arizona law (A.R.S. § 12-1202) also recognizes a private landlocked landowner’s right to seek an easement from a neighboring landowner upon a showing of “reasonable necessity.”

different types of easements

Right-of-Way. A right of way easement lets people travel across a property for a specific purpose.
Easements of Support. A easement of support prohibits other parties from digging too deep and affecting the foundation of the property’s structures.
Easements of “Light and Air”. This prevents a neighboring property from building too high and affecting the view from the dominant estate’s structure(s).
Aviation Easements. Aviation easements allow the use of aircraft above a particular property.

how are easements terminated?

How Can an easement be terminated? There are 4 basic ways an easement can be terminated:

Termination by Expiration: An easement can be terminated by the expiration of an agreed upon time event. For example, there could be an agreement that an easement will last for 10 years at which time it will automatically terminate.
Termination by Agreement: This happens when the property owner expressly conveys the easement back to the grantor. For example, if Simon owns an easement over Garfunkel’s land, and Garfunkel requests that Simon release the easement, Simon may then execute the termination agreement and convey the easement back to Garfunkel.

3. Abandonment of an Easement: Easements can be terminated when the owner abandons her right to it. Usually, mere nonuse of an easement is not enough to qualify for termination. The owner must make a clear, unequivocal, decisive act to abandon the easement.

4. Abandonment by Decision: A decisive act to abandon an easement could include creating a new alternate road to enter the property or installing fencing or a wall or some other time of barrier across the easement.

5. Termination by Merger of the Dominant and Servient Properties: Easements can be terminated by a merger of the dominant and servient properties. Under the doctrine of merger, if one party acquires the property subject to and benefited by an easement. The easement will have been said to merge with the other rights held by the owner.

Frequently, adjacent properties have an easement between them, allowing one or both parties access to the other. One is the servient property, and the property that benefits from the easement is the dominant property. In this case, you have an appurtenant easement. If one owner acquired both properties and combined them into one legal description, the easement would no longer be necessary. The two properties have merged. This makes sense, because an easement is the right to cross over the property belonging to another person. However, if you own the land, the easement will merge into the land because it is not necessary to have permission to cross your own property.

landlocked properties in arizona

In Arizona, it’s not unheard of for a piece of property in an isolated and undeveloped area to not have legal access to the property. Meaning there are not roads leading to the property and there are not Express or Prescriptive easements.

In this scenario, the landlocked owner has several options. If the seller of the Arizona property sold a portion of her land without a formal access roadway, then Arizona law implies in the sale of the property an easement across the seller’s remaining property for access–and utilities. If the seller of the land refuses, the landlocked owner can ask a court to enter an order compelling the seller to grant an easement. Because Arizona law generally presumes that transfer of real property includes by implication that there is a way the property can be accessed and used.

private condemnation of properties

A landlocked property in Arizona may be able to file a “private condemnation” lawsuit, where the landlocked owner can ask a court for just enough of the neighboring property to build and maintain a roadway in order to access the property. The landlocked owner must prove that there is no sufficient alternative access to the property. As in public condemnation, private condemnation requires compensation to the owner of the property being taken.

Conclusion

Understanding real estate law can be very confusing, if you have questions then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-702-1610 or by sending us a message HERE.

Fraudulently Recorded Documents

In Arizona, there are no real protections that prevent someone from recording fraudulent documents with a county recorder. A person can literally quit claim the Arizona State Capital building to themselves and the county will record it. The recorder’s office does not have the ability or duty to confirm that the documents are legitimate and so this can cause real problems. There are multiple occasions where I’ve had a client come into my office panicked because some type of fraudulent document had been recorded involving one of their properties. I’ve seen cases where easements were added without the owner’s knowledge or permission. Plus, I’ve seen parcels split or property completely transferred to another person!!!

WHAT CAN YOU DO IF SOMEONE RECORDS A FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT?

Arizona law will not prevent someone from wrongfully recording documents with the county, however, state law provides for severe punishment against those who do.

Under A.R.S. § 33-420(C), provides penalties against anyone who wrongly records a document. If found guilty, the court can award a minimum penalty of $5,000, or treble damages for the actual financial harm, and attorney’s fees.

A.R.S. § 33-420(A) states:

A. A person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is liable to the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property for the sum of not less than five thousand dollars, or for treble the actual damages caused by the recording, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney fees and costs of the action.
A.R.S. 33-420(A)

B. The owner or beneficial title holder of the real property may bring an action pursuant to this section in the superior court in the county in which the real property is located for such relief as is required to immediately clear title to the real property as provided for in the rules of procedure for special actions. This special action may be brought based on the ground that the lien is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid. The owner or beneficial title holder may bring a separate special action to clear title to the real property or join such action with an action for damages as described in this section. In either case, the owner or beneficial title holder may recover reasonable attorney fees and costs of the action if he prevails.
A.R.S. 33-420(B)

C. A person who is named in a document which purports to create an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property and who knows that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid shall be liable to the owner or title holder for the sum of not less than one thousand dollars, or for treble actual damages, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney fees and costs as provided in this section, if he willfully refuses to release or correct such document of record within twenty days from the date of a written request from the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property.
A.R.S. 33-420(C)

D. A document purporting to create an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property not authorized by statute, judgment or other specific legal authority is presumed to be groundless and invalid.
A.R.S. 33-420(D)

E. A person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
A.R.S. 33-420(E)

How to Remove an Invalid Lien

Occasionally, I am approached by clients who believe someone has recorded an invalid lien against their property and want to know what they can do to remove it.

A.R.S. 33-420: Discusses the issue of removing groundless or fraudulent liens that have been recorded with the county.

A.R.S. 33-420(A): Provides a property owner at least $5000, or treble the actual damages caused by the recording of forged, groundless, misstated, or contains false claims.

A.R.S. 33-420(C): Provides the property owner $1000, or treble actual damages, whichever is greater, and attorney fees and costs, if he willfully refuses to release or correct such document of record within 20-days from the date of a written request from the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property.

If you need help from an experienced shared well attorney, then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-702-1608 or message us HERE.

Evictions and Ownership Disputes

Arizona law is clear that eviction cases are designed to address the issue of possession and not the issue of property ownership. The limited scope of a forcible entry and detainer action has been strictly defined by Arizona statute. A.R.S. § 12-1177(A) states in relevant part:

On the trial of an action of Forcible Entry or Forcible Detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.
A.R.S. 12-1177(A)

Evidence offered to the Arizona Superior Court showing anything other than who is entitled to possess the property will be excluded from an eviction hearing. This means that a defendant-tenant who claims ownership of the rental property must file a quiet title action and not raise the issue during an eviction hearing.

Proof of property Ownership

The Arizona Superior Court’s inquiry into property ownership is limited to the extent that Plaintiff holds title to the property in dispute. If the Plaintiff – Arizona Landlord’s name appears on the trustee’s deed then the Court should not inquire into ownership any further.

The issuance of the Trustee’s Deed to Plaintiff is conclusive evidence that all statutory requirements for the Trustee’s Sale were satisfied and that Plaintiff has the right to possession of the Property.

A.R.S. § 33-811(B) further provides:

…the Trustee’s deed shall raise the presumption of compliance with the requirements of this chapter relating to the exercise of the power of sale and the sale of the trust property, including recording, mailing, publishing, and posting of the notice of sale and the conduct of the sale.

eviction cases are summary remedies

Arizona courts have held that litigation as to the validity of title “would convert a forcible detainer action into a quiet title action and defeat its purpose as a summary remedy.” Curtis v. Morris, 186 Ariz. 534, 535, 925 P.2d 259, 260 (1996).

For example, in Merrifield v. Merrifield, 95 Ariz. 152, 154, 388 P.2d 153, 155 (1963), the plaintiff held title to property pursuant to quitclaim deed which was valid on its face. The lower court nonetheless inquired into the merits of that title and refused to find the defendant guilty of forcible entry and detainer. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling because plaintiff was entitled to possession as the title holder and pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1177, the trial court was prohibited from considering the merits of the plaintiff’s title. Accordingly, any evidence offered by Defendants to raise extrinsic issues or disprove Plaintiff’s title must be excluded.

In another case demonstrating the Superior Courts inability to inquire into ownership in a forcible detainer (see Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. Rushing, 64 Ariz. 199, 167 P.2d 394 (1946), the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “[T]he statutes of this state make that very plain and indicate quite clearly that the right to actual possession is the only issue to be determined in such an action.” Id. at 204, 397. The court also discussed the legislative intent in limiting the scope of a forcible entry and detainer action stating:

The object of a forcible entry and detainer action is to afford a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of premises withheld by tenants, and for this reason this objective would be entirely frustrated if the defendant were permitted to deny his landlord’s title, or to interpose customary and usual defenses permissible in the ordinary action at law. And for the same reason, the merits of the title may not be inquired into in such an action, for if the merits of the title and other defenses above enumerated were permitted and the court heard testimony concerning them, then other and secondary issues would be presented to the court and the action would not afford a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of the premises.
Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. Rushing, 64 Ariz. 199, 167 P.2d 394 (1946))

Id. at 204-05, 397. Because the trustee’s deed is conclusive evidence of Plaintiff’s title under A.R.S. § 33-811(B), and because the court is prohibited from inquiring into the merits of that title under A.R.S. § 12-1177(A), judgment must be rendered in favor of Plaintiff regardless of any defense of ownership the Defendants may raise.

Ownership Disputes in the Justice Court

The ownership of property and their interaction with evictions can become very complex. The above article discusses issues of ownership disputes and evictions in the Superior Court, however, the rules that apply to ownership disputes and evictions in the Justice Court (where most evictions take place) are completely different.

A.R.S. § 22-201(D) addresses this issue:

Justices of the peace have jurisdiction to try the right to possession of real property when title or ownership is not a subject of inquiry in the action. If in any such action the title or ownership of real property becomes an issue, the justice shall so certify in the court record, at once stop further proceedings in the action and forward all papers together with a certified copy of the court record in the action to the Superior Court, where the action shall be docketed and determined as though originally brought in the Superior Court.
A.R.S. § 22-201(D)

A.R.S. § 22-201(F) adds further clarification:

In actions between landlord and tenant for possession of leased premises, the title to the property leased shall not be raised nor made an issue.
A.R.S. § 22-201(F)

Occasionally, when a case is sent to the Superior Court an Arizona landlord will respond, “but my tenant doesn’t own the property! It’s mine! They’re just lying! Why is the judge believing them? What could have been done to prevent this?”

While a landlords’ frustration is understandable it’s important to remember that the Justice Court judge is just following the law. Just because a Justice Court Judge moves a case into the Arizona Superior Court system does not mean they believe the tenant. Additionally, it does not mean that the tenant did something right or that we made some kind of a mistake. It simply means the Judge is following the law.

For help with your Arizona landlord – tenant matters contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-389-6529 or message us HERE.