Legal Opinion
Mariposa Development Co. v. Stoddard
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided October 28, 1985No. 2 CA-CIV 5426PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BIRDSALL, Presiding Judge.
The appellees, Mariposa Development Company and RMH&S Land Company, were awarded their attorney fees following a default judgment quieting title to certain real property in Santa Cruz County. The attorney fees were awarded pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1103(B) which provides:
“B. If a party, twenty days prior to bringing the action to quiet title to real property, requests the person, other than the state, holding an apparent adverse interest or right therein to execute a quit claim deed thereto, and also tenders to him five dollars for execution and delivery of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wenk v. Horizon Moving & Storage Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1982
- Ricke v. RickeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
- Capital City Motors, Inc. v. Thomas W. Garland, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1962
- Cagle v. CarlsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
- Somerton State Bank v. MaxeyArizona Supreme Court · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Jones v. BurkCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
- Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
- Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
- Lavidas v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
- Berryhill v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.