Matcha v. Wachs
132 Ariz. 378, 646 P.2d 263, 1982 Ariz. LEXIS 204 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Substantial compliance with statutory redemption requirements is sufficient for a lien creditor to perfect their right to redeem property after a foreclosure sale, provided that the deviation from the statute is minor and does not cause prejudice to other interested parties.
Facts:
- The property of an owner named Schulz was subject to several encumbrances, including a first mortgage to FNMA, a second-priority deed of trust to Wachs, and a fourth-priority judgment lien held by a law firm, which was later assigned to Matcha.
- After Schulz defaulted, FNMA foreclosed on the mortgage, and the property was sold to FNMA at a sheriff's sale on February 9, 1978, triggering a six-month redemption period for Schulz.
- Within the six-month period, Wachs, the senior lienholder, timely filed a notice of intent to redeem with the sheriff as required by A.R.S. § 12-1284.
- However, Wachs failed to simultaneously file the supporting documents required by A.R.S. § 12-1287—a certified copy of his lien and an affidavit of the amount due.
- The law firm (Matcha's assignor) also filed a timely notice of intent to redeem and properly included all required supporting documents.
- Two days after the six-month redemption period expired, Wachs served the sheriff with the required supporting documents and tendered the redemption payment.
- Matcha also tendered the redemption payment but did not include the amount owed on Wachs's senior lien, arguing Wachs had forfeited his right to redeem due to his failure to strictly comply with the statute.
Procedural Posture:
- Matcha brought a declaratory action against the Maricopa County Sheriff and Wachs in the Superior Court of Maricopa County (trial court).
- The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Matcha, ruling that Wachs had not perfected his right to redeem.
- Wachs, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, finding that Wachs had substantially complied with the statutes.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide the issue of substantial compliance.
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 a lien creditor's substantial compliance with statutory redemption requirements, rather than strict compliance, suffice to perfect their right to redeem property after a foreclosure sale, provided no other party is prejudiced?
Opinions:
Majority - Feldman, Justice
Yes. Substantial compliance with statutory redemption requirements is sufficient to perfect a lien creditor's right to redeem property after a foreclosure sale if no other party is prejudiced. Redemption statutes are remedial in nature and should be interpreted equitably to achieve their purposes: ensuring a fair sale price and the payment of debts in order of priority. The court reasoned that applying the statutes with the severity of a penal law was not the legislature's intent, citing precedent from Western Land & Cattle Co. v. National Bank of Arizona. Here, Wachs's two-day delay in filing supporting documents was a minor deviation that did not prejudice Matcha, who had actual knowledge of the validity, priority, and amount of Wachs's lien. To enforce a forfeiture would honor form over substance, provide a windfall to a junior lienholder, and contravene the statutes' purpose.
Dissenting - Hays, Justice
No. A lien creditor must strictly comply with the statutory redemption requirements to perfect their right to redeem. The right of redemption is a creation of statute, not equity, and must be exercised strictly according to its terms, as established in Hummel v. Citizens Building & Loan Association. Adopting a substantial compliance standard introduces uncertainty and improperly uses equitable principles to override clear legislative mandates. This decision renders the specific documentation requirements of A.R.S. § 12-1287 'virtual surplusage' and exceeds judicial authority by creating an equitable exception to the statute.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the doctrine of substantial compliance for Arizona's mortgage redemption statutes, shifting the state's jurisprudence from a strict compliance standard to a more flexible, equitable approach. The ruling prioritizes the remedial purpose of the law over rigid adherence to procedural technicalities, particularly when a deviation is minor and causes no harm. While this promotes fairness in individual cases, it also introduces a degree of uncertainty, as future litigation will be required to define the boundaries of 'substantial compliance' and 'prejudice.' This case signals a judicial preference for preventing forfeitures and windfalls that can result from minor, harmless procedural errors in this area of law.
