09/01/2009 — CV2008029071 COMPANY, CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE 09/01/2009 JUDGE DOUGLAS L. RAYES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/10/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2008-029071
09/01/2009
Docket Code 028
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE DOUGLAS L. RAYES
T. Tankersley
Deputy
CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY
PHILIP R WOOTEN
v.
MARICOPA COUNTY TREASURER
EMILIE S BELL
CHARLES E MAXWELL
PETER M GENNRICH
STATUS CONFERENCE SET
On the Court’s own motion,
IT IS ORDERED setting a telephonic Status Conference for September 15, 2009 at
8:45 a.m. in this Division. Counsel for Petitioner Chowdhury is to initiate the telephonic
conference by first arranging the presence of all other counsel or self-represented parties on the
conference call and by calling this division (602-506-0816) promptly at the scheduled time.
09/15/2009 — CV2008029071 COMPANY, CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE 09/15/2009 JUDGE DOUGLAS L. RAYES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/17/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2008-029071
09/15/2009
Docket Code 029
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE DOUGLAS L. RAYES
T. Tankersley
Deputy
CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY
v.
MARICOPA COUNTY TREASURER
EMILIE S BELL
GREGORY P GILLIS
STATUS CONFERENCE
8:47 a.m. This is the time set for telephonic Status Conference. Petitioner Kelly
Chowdhury is represented by counsel, Gregory P. Gillis. Defendant Note Trackers LLC is
represented by counsel, Emilie S. Bell.
A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court reporter.
Discussion is held regarding case status and excess proceeds agreement.
The Court advises counsel that it will rule on the current pleadings in this matter.
Counsel will not submit any additional filings.
IT IS ORDERED taking the argument on the objection to application for release of
excess process matter under advisement.
9:01 a.m. Matter concludes.
09/15/2009 — CV2008029071 COMPANY, CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE 09/15/2009 JUDGE DOUGLAS L. RAYES View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
09/17/2009 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2008-029071
09/15/2009
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
JUDGE DOUGLAS L. RAYES
T. Tankersley
Deputy
CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY
PHILIP R WOOTEN
v.
MARICOPA COUNTY TREASURER
EMILIE S BELL
RANDY NUSSBAUM
GREGORY P GILLIS
RULING MINUTE ENTRY
This matter was taken under advisement after the oral argument of September 15, 2009
on Petition Kelly Chowdhury’s (“Chowdhury”) Objection to Application for Release of Excess
Proceeds Filed by Note Trackers, LLC. The Court has considered Chowdhury’s Objection to
Application, Note Trackers, LLC’s (“Note Trackers”) Response and the arguments of counsel.
This matter involves a dispute of approximately $14,000 of excess proceeds remaining
after a trustee’s sale. Chowdhury was the titled owner of the subject property. Note Trackers is
the agent of Washington Mutual Bank, the second position leinholder on the subject property at
the time of the trustee’s sale.
On November 17, 2008, California Reconveyance Company filed a complaint concerning
the approximate $14,000 of excess funds involved herein alleging that after conducting a
trustee’s sale there were excess funds available for distribution to parties with a recorded and
legal interest in the property. On July 6, 2009, both Chowdhury and Note Trackers filed
Application for Release of Surplus Funds from Trustee’s Sale.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2008-029071
09/15/2009
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
Although Washington Mutual has a superior right to receive proceeds, Chowdhury
objects to its Application on two grounds. First Chowdhury claims that there is nothing in the
record to establish that at the time it filed the Application on behalf of Washington Mutual that
Note Trackers was its agent. After counsel for Note Trackers, Emilie Bell, represented at the
oral argument that there was in fact such an agreement at the time Note Trackers filed the
Application, Chowdhury withdrew that basis for her objection.
Chowdhury’s second basis for her objection is that by failing to respond to the complaint
and file its Application within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, Note Trackers waived
whatever claim it had.
ARS § 33-812(I) provides in part:
“… If a response is not filed within the one hundred eighty day period by
the person found by the Court to have a superior right to receive the proceeds, the
Court shall enter an order in favor of any applicant or respondent entitled to the
proceeds.”
The Court finds that ARS § 33-812(I) mandates that if a response was not filed by Note
Trackers within the 180 day period the “Court shall” enter an order in favor of any applicant
entitled to the proceeds. The 180 day period is mandatory and the Court does not have the
discretion to extend it.
IT IS ORDERED sustaining Chowdhury’s objection to Note Trackers Application for
Release of Excess Proceeds. Therefore,
The Court shall sign and enter the proposed Order Submitted by Chowdhury releasing the
excess proceeds to her.
