Hogan v Washington Mutual, Arizona Supreme Court Issues “Amended” Opinion

In response to pressure from Arizona’s Trustee Association, the Arizona Supreme Court reconsidered one sentence of its Hogan decision, the sentence referring to a trustee’s fiduciary (gasp!) duty to the trustor (the homeowner/borrower).  The court issued an amended opinion as promised yesterday.

Um, yeah, thanks for clearing that up. It would be ghastly if any court were to acknowledge that a homeowner had any rights in our fine state.  Although wait, the trustee has always had a duty to the trustor (three-party instrument, not two-party instrument), at least as a neutral agent (agents have duties, si?), and the deed of trust language and the statutory language assumes certain thresholds are met, say, for example, that the party foreclosing is an actual party to the deed of trust, or validly represents a party.

In all seriousness, this is overall a good reaffirmation by the Arizona Supreme Court that the trustee has a duty to the trustor to abide strictly by the terms of the deed of trust and the non-judicial foreclosure statutes.  It also reiterates that Patton is still good law, and was not abrogated or diminished by any amendments to ARS 33-801, et al.

Advertisements

One thought on “Hogan v Washington Mutual, Arizona Supreme Court Issues “Amended” Opinion

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s