Legal Opinion

Cely v. Deconcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin & Lacy, P.C.

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided August 7, 1990No. 2 CA-CV 88-0389PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FIDEL, Presiding Judge.

In Baker v. Gardner, our supreme court held that the holder of a note and security device may not waive the security and sue on the note to hold the maker personally liable for the unpaid balance when the security falls within the limited class of purchase money mortgages and deeds of trust described in Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes. 1 160 Ariz. 98, 104, 770 P.2d 766, 772 (1988). We hold in this case that when one home is mortgaged to secure the purchase of a second home, the mortgage is not a purchase money security interest and the mortgage anti-deficiency…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Roseleaf Corp. v. ChierighinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Baker v. GardnerArizona Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Steele v. VandersliceArizona Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Yasuna v. MillerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  5. Dobias v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bank One, Arizona, N.A. v. BeauvaisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
  2. Long v. CorbetCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
  3. Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimekArizona Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Helvetica Servicing Inc v. Michael S PasquanArizona Supreme Court · 2020
  5. Swanson v. KrenikAlaska Supreme Court · 1994

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API