Helvetica Servicing Inc. v. Pasquan Arizona Supreme Court, 8/25/20 (the 5th appeal). To resolve the fact question of whether a residential purchase money loan is a construction loan or a home improvement loan, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the loan. Here, the Court identified five non-exclusive factors indicating whether a loan is a construction loan for purposes of anti-deficiency protection under A.R.S. § 33-729(A): (1) whether there was a complete or substantially complete demolition of an existing structure and a new building constructed in its place; (2) the intent of the parties when executing the loan documents; (3) whether the structure was inhabitable or inhabited during construction; (4) whether the structure was largely preserved and improved or substantially expanded; and (5) whether the project is characterized as “home improvement” or “construction” in the loan documents and in the permits or other official documents. The distinction between the loans is significant because statutory anti-deficiency protection is afforded to construction loans but not to home improvement loans – so lenders may not seek a money judgment against the borrower over a construction loan.
Baker v. Gardner Ariz.,1988. 770 P.2d 766 Holder of purchase money note and trust deed on premises sought to bring suit to collect on note and waived security deed of trust. The Superior Court, Maricopa County, No. C-587681, Michael J. O’Melia, J., found action precluded by anti-deficiency statute. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed in a memorandum decision. The Supreme Court, Feldman, V.C.J., held that: (1) holders of purchase money note and security device could not hold maker liable for entire unpaid balance by waiving security, and (2) election of remedies could occur except where anti-deficiency statute applied.
Cely v. DeConcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin & Lacy, P.C., 166 Ariz. 500, 505, 803 P.2d 911, 916 (App.1990). A “purchase money mortgage” for purposes of Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes is one that encumbers the property being sold.
Junior wiped out by senior’s foreclosure or trustee’s sale – NO DEFICIENCY if also purchase money lien Nydam v. Crawford, 181 Ariz. 101, 887 P.2d 631 (App. 1994). DEFICIENCY – consolidated second loan, used to pay off original second, plus credit cards, etc. Am. Gen. Fin.Serv. V. Dinwiddie, 2008 WL 4182862 (Ariz. Ct. Apps. 2/26/2008) (unreported)
Multiple lenders with multiple notes: Junior lender can sue on Note after foreclosure by first lender unless property is purchase money, 2 ½ acres or less and utilized as a one or two family dwelling. Wells Fargo Credit v Tolliver, 183 Ariz. 343, 903 P.2d 1101 (App. 1995); W.D. Lang v Corbet, 181 Ariz. 153 (888 P.2d 1340 (App. 1994) (junior could pursue sue on note and collect excess sale proceeds from sale of first lender).
By Diane Drain|Published On: August 29th, 2022|Last Updated: August 29th, 2022|
Diane is a well respected Arizona bankruptcy and foreclosure attorney. As a retired law professor, she believes in offering everyone, not just her clients, advice about bankruptcy and Arizona foreclosure laws. Diane is also a mentor to hundreds of Arizona attorneys.
*Important Note from Diane: Everything on this web site is offered for educational purposes only and not intended to provide legal advice, nor create an attorney client relationship between you, me, or the author of any article. Information in this web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from an attorney familiar with your personal circumstances and licensed to practice law in your state. Make sure to check out their reviews.*
5 / 5
“You folks are the BEST OF THE BEST in Arizona.” M.H.
You and Jay are the best attorneys I have ever had or needed and thank God for the Honorable Robert Gottsfield in recommending you folks – I would have never made it through the entire process without you and Jay and God Bless you both always and stay in touch as well. You folks are the BEST OF THE BEST in Arizona.
5 / 5
“My only regret is that I didn’t find Diane sooner.” K.H.
I can’t say enough good things about Diane. The way she handled my not typical circumstances was amazing. I was very nervous to start the bankruptcy process but Diane just has a very comforting way of explaining the whole process. My only regret is that I didn’t find Diane sooner. If you find yourself in a financial situation that you can’t correct on your own, please Call Diane Drain as soon as possible.
5 / 5
“Filing for bankruptcy can be a stressful life event” R.A.
Filing for bankruptcy can be a stressful life event, and selecting the right attorney can add to this stress. Diane and Jay were a pleasure to work with, and it is obvious that they are passionate about helping people get their life back on track. I would highly recommend them if you need a bankruptcy attorney.
We are a debt relief agency; we help individuals and small businesses through the bankruptcy process. Attorney Advertising. This website is designed for general information only. Any information you obtain from this website should not be construed as legal advice, nor as grounds for forming an attorney-client relationship. You should consult an attorney for information on obtaining formal legal advice.