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

  1. Wenk v. Horizon Moving & Storage Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Ricke v. RickeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
  3. Capital City Motors, Inc. v. Thomas W. Garland, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1962
  4. Cagle v. CarlsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
  5. Somerton State Bank v. MaxeyArizona Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Jones v. BurkCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
  2. Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
  3. Lewis v. Pleasant Country, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
  4. Lavidas v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
  5. Berryhill v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994

4 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