Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A.
277 P.3d 781, 230 Ariz. 584 (2012)
Rule of Law:
Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require a deed of trust beneficiary to prove its authority or “show the note” (i.e., establish ownership of the underlying promissory note) before the trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure sale.
Facts:
- John F. Hogan purchased two properties in Yavapai County in the late 1990s.
- In 2004, Hogan obtained loans from Long Beach Mortgage Company for each property, securing them with deeds of trust.
- By 2008, Hogan became delinquent on both loans.
- A notice of trustee’s sale for the first property named Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) as the beneficiary.
- A notice of trustee’s sale for the second property identified Deutsche Bank as the beneficiary, following an assignment of the deed of trust from JPMorgan Chase, successor in interest to WaMu and Long Beach.
Procedural Posture:
- John F. Hogan filed lawsuits in superior court (trial court) seeking to enjoin the trustee’s sales for both properties.
- The superior court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss Hogan's complaints.
- Hogan appealed the superior court's dismissals to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's decisions in both cases, holding that Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statute does not require presentation of the original note before commencing foreclosure proceedings.
- Hogan petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review and consolidated the cases due to a recurring issue of first impression and statewide importance.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Arizona's non-judicial foreclosure statutory scheme require a deed of trust beneficiary to demonstrate ownership of the underlying promissory note before a trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Berch
No, Arizona's non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require a deed of trust beneficiary to prove its authority or 'show the note' before the trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure. The Court held that Arizona's non-judicial foreclosure statutes (A.R.S. §§ 33-801 to -821) do not impose such an obligation. The statutes empower the trustee to sell the real property securing the note upon default and only require that the trustee send the trustor notice of the default, signed by the beneficiary or its agent, stating the unpaid principal balance. The Court acknowledged that a deed of trust, like a mortgage, may only be enforced by a person entitled to enforce the secured obligation, but Hogan's complaint incorrectly placed the burden on the beneficiaries to demonstrate this right proactively before foreclosure. The Court clarified that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does not govern liens on real property and therefore does not apply to non-judicial foreclosures under trust deeds, as trustees are not seeking to collect on notes but rather noticing sales pursuant to the trust deeds. The Court also addressed concerns about potential double recovery, noting that Arizona's anti-deficiency statutes (A.R.S. § 33-814(G)) protect debtors whose foreclosed residential property consists of 2.5 acres or less. Ultimately, the Court emphasized that non-judicial foreclosure sales are designed to operate quickly and efficiently, outside of the judicial process, and imposing a 'show the note' requirement would re-inject litigation, cost, and delay into a process intended to avoid them.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the procedural requirements for non-judicial foreclosures in Arizona, reinforcing the efficiency-driven nature of the statutory scheme. By explicitly rejecting the 'show the note' requirement, the Arizona Supreme Court has streamlined the foreclosure process for beneficiaries and trustees, insulating it from challenges based on demands for pre-foreclosure note production. This decision may reduce litigation surrounding non-judicial foreclosures in the state, potentially accelerating the resolution of defaulted loans, but it also places a higher burden on trustors to proactively challenge a beneficiary's authority if they believe it is genuinely lacking, rather than relying on a generalized demand for proof of note ownership.
