04/26/2004 — CV2003011558 HICKS, ROBERT 04/26/2004 HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2003-011558
04/26/2004
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 04/28/2004
U M L I C, V P, L L P
ROGER R FOOTE
v.
ROBERT HICKS, et al.
ANDREW ABRAHAM
WILLIAM G FAIRBOURN
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
The Court having received Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s
Cross Motion for Summary Judgment,
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument for May 10, 2004, at 11:00 a.m., before:
The Honorable PETER C. REINSTEIN
Maricopa County Superior Court
Old Courthouse
125 W. Washington, Courtroom 303
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 506-6368
If counsel cite significant out-of-state case law, the Court will appreciate receiving a copy
of the case law with the Court’s copy of the pleading.
05/10/2004 — CV2003011558 HICKS, ROBERT 05/10/2004 HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2003-011558
05/10/2004
Docket Code 020
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 05/12/2004
U M L I C, V P, L L P
ROGER R FOOTE
v.
ROBERT HICKS, et al.
ANDREW ABRAHAM
WILLIAM G FAIRBOURN
MINUTE ENTRY
11:03 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument re Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is represented by
counsel, Roger Foote. Defendant Hicks is present on his own behalf. Defendant Callan is
represented by counsel, William Fairbourn.
Court reporter, Judie Bryant is present.
Argument is heard.
IT IS ORDERED taking the matter under advisement.
11:33 a.m. Matter concludes.
05/11/2004 — CV2003011558 HICKS, ROBERT 05/11/2004 HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2003-011558
05/11/2004
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 05/13/2004
U M L I C, V P, L L P
ROGER R FOOTE
v.
ROBERT HICKS, et al.
ROBERT HICKS
30710 N WHIRLAWAY TRAIL
QUEEN CREEK AZ 85242-4258
ANDREW ABRAHAM
WILLIAM G FAIRBOURN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed Defendants’ (Ingomar) Motion for Summary Judgment,
Plaintiff’s (UMLIC) Response and Cross Motion, and Ingomar’s Reply and Response to the
Cross-Motion. The Court has also heard arguments of counsel.
The issue at bar is whether there was a breach of the statute, A.R.S. § 33-808 in
conjunction with the sale of the property in question. Ingomar contends that the notice given
was more than adequate for the trustee’s sale which took place March 14, 2003. UMLIC claims
that the sale was invalid because the trustee failed to post a proper notice on the property.
With respect to the notice given in the present case, the following facts are not in dispute:
1. Mr. Callan (the trustee) recorded the notice of the trustee’s sale in the
Maricopa County Recorder’s Office on October 5, 2001.
2. Mr. Callan mailed, via certified, return receipt mail, notices to all of the
interested parties pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-809 on October 10, 2001.
3. Mr. Callan instructed Trustee Services of Arizona to post notice of the sale at
the Hicks property and at the courthouse at least 20 days before the date of
sale. Trustee Services of Arizona posted notice on the public bulleting board
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2003-011558
05/11/2004
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 2
at the Maricopa County Courthouse on August 27, 2002. The sale was held
on March 14, 2003.
4. Mr. Callan published notice of the sale in the Arizona Business Gazette on
October 18, October 25, November 1, and November 8, 2001.
5. Mr. Callan mailed a certified copy of the notice of trustee’s sale within five
days after recording the notice of trustee’s sale to each of the persons who
were parties to the trust deed, the Hicks, pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-809 (C).
Further, Mr. Callan postponed the sale seven times while the parties attempted a
settlement. There is no dispute that Mr. Callan properly postponed each sale by complying with
A.R.S. § 33-810.
It is well settled that one of the basic purposes of the Deed of Trust Act was to provide
for expeditious foreclosure proceedings. Ledesma v. Pioneer Nat. Title Ins. Co., 129 Ariz. 171,
173 (App. 1981). In addition, it is incumbent on the Court to look at the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the notice and sale in determining whether fair notice was given. The
Court finds that the notice given here was in compliance with the statute and that no breach
occurred. The Court further finds that even if there was a failure to properly post the notice
pursuant to 33-809, on August 30, 2002, it does not invalidate the sale given the totality of the
circumstances.
Finally, the Court finds that Defendants’ argument based upon A.R.S. § 33-811 (C) is
well taken. The statute mandates that “all persons to whom the trustee mails a notice of sale
under a deed of trust pursuant to § 33-809 shall waive all defenses and objections to the sale not
raised . . . before the scheduled date of the sale.” In the case at bar, UMLIC failed to raise the
objections that they now are asserting against the trustee.
Accordingly, the Court finds that as a matter of law summary judgment is proper in favor
of Defendants on all Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
05/19/2004 — CV2003011558 HICKS, ROBERT 05/19/2004 HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2003-011558
05/19/2004
Docket Code 094
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 05/21/2004
U M L I C, V P, L L P
ROGER R FOOTE
v.
ROBERT HICKS, et al.
ROBERT HICKS
30710 NORTH WHIRLAWAY TRAIL
QUEEN CREEK AZ 85242
WILLIAM G FAIRBOURN
ANGIE HICKS
30710 NORTH WHIRLAWAY TRAIL
QUEEN CREEK AZ 85242
ORAL ARGUMENT SET
The Court having received Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
IT IS ORDERED setting oral argument for June 29, 2004, at 8:30 a.m., before:
The Honorable PETER C. REINSTEIN
Maricopa County Superior Court
Old Courthouse
125 W. Washington, Courtroom 303
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 506-6368
If counsel cite significant out-of-state case law, the Court will appreciate receiving a copy
of the case law with the Court’s copy of the pleading.
05/19/2004 — CV2003011558 HICKS, ROBERT 05/19/2004 HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2003-011558
05/19/2004
Docket Code 019
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 05/21/2004
U M L I C, V P, L L P
ROGER R FOOTE
v.
ROBERT HICKS, et al.
ROBERT HICKS
30710 N WHIRLAWAY TRAIL
QUEEN CREEK AZ 85242
WILLIAM G FAIRBOURN
ANGIE HICKS
30710 N WHIRLAWAY TRAIL
QUEEN CREEK AZ 85242
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. Upon the Court’s
review,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
05/19/2004 — CV2003011558 HICKS, ROBERT 05/19/2004 HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2003-011558
05/19/2004
Docket Code 025
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 05/21/2004
U M L I C, V P, L L P
ROGER R FOOTE
v.
ROBERT HICKS, et al.
ROBERT HICKS
30710 N WHIRLAWAY TRAIL
QUEEN CREEK AZ 85242
WILLIAM G FAIRBOURN
MINUTE ENTRY
The Court having received ex parte correspondence from Defendants Robert and Angie
Hicks,
IT IS ORDERED the Court declines to take any action.
06/29/2004 — CV2003011558 HICKS, ROBERT 06/29/2004 HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2003-011558
06/29/2004
Docket Code 023
Form V000A
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PETER C. REINSTEIN
M. Sahli
Deputy
FILED: 07/01/2004
U M L I C, V P, L L P
ROGER R FOOTE
v.
ROBERT HICKS, et al.
ROBERT HICKS
30710 N WHIRLAWAY TRAIL
QUEEN CREEK AZ 85242
WILLIAM G FAIRBOURN
MINUTE ENTRY
8:25 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument re Defendants Ingomar Limited
Partnership’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff Robert Hicks is present on his own behalf.
Defendants are represented by counsel, Bryan Cafferelli.
Court reporter, Judie Bryant is present.
Argument is heard.
For the reasons stated on the record,
IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Dismiss.
8:41 a.m. Matter concludes.
