Legal Opinion

VERMA v. Stuhr

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 29, 2009No. 1 CA-CV 07-0576, 1 CA-CV 07-0747, 1 CA-CV 08-0052PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SWANN, Judge.

¶ 1 Three similar eases require us to decide when A.R.S. § 33-422 permits a buyer to rescind a contract to purchase real property. In each ease, the buyers had actual knowledge of a federal flood easement over the subject property within the time provided for due diligence under their contracts. In each case, the buyers affirmatively elected not to terminate the contract after learning of the defect in title created by the easement. Ultimately, however, the buyers attempted to extract themselves from the transactions by invoking the statute’s express disclosure requirement…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. City of Phoenix v. GeylerArizona Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Mail Boxes v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Hernandez v. FrohmillerArizona Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Coconino Pulp and Paper Company v. MarvinArizona Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Eller Media Co. v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan Law Office of Rand HaddockCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
  2. J Hamblen Et Ux v. Hon. hatch/winslow MemorialArizona Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Benderson-Wainberg Associates, L.P.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012
  4. CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLCCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
  5. First Financial Bank, N.A. v. ClaassenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015

7 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