Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
v.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding
Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
K E S S L E R, Judge:
2
FIRST FINANCIAL v. CLAASSEN
Decision of the Court
6 In the First Appeal, this Court found that the trial court erred
in calculating the deficiency amount, reduced the amount to $205,273.34,
and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with this determination.
First Financial, 238 Ariz. at 164-65, 22-24. We also reversed the fee and
cost awards for reconsideration in light of our opinion but affirmed the
remainder of the judgment. Id. at 165, 24.
_________________________________________
________________________________________
Claassen also requested exoneration of his cost bond and attorneys fees
and costs under A.R.S. 12-341 (2017) and 12-341.01(A) (2013). First
Financial opposed Claassens motion, arguing that the simplest way to
implement the mandate would be to enter judgment against [Claassen] in
the lower deficiency amount of $205,273.34. First Financial also argued
that the reduced deficiency amount did not impact the ability of the Sale
Price to satisfy the Judgment, which totaled more than $3 million.
3
FIRST FINANCIAL v. CLAASSEN
Decision of the Court
Judgment). The court also renewed its earlier fee award in favor of First
Financial. Claassen timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to
A.R.S. 12-2101(A)(1) (2011).
DISCUSSION
(emphasis added). When read in full, this provision is consistent with the
foreclosure statutes, which state that [a]ny sale of real property to satisfy
a judgment under [A.R.S. 33-725] . . . shall be a credit on the judgment in
the amount of either the fair market value of the real property or the sale
price of the real property at sheriffs sale, whichever is greater. A.R.S.
33-725(B) (2017), 33-727(B) (2017).2 It also was written before the foreclosure
2 Claassen also contends that A.R.S. 33-725 does not apply because
First Financial brought its judicial foreclosure claim under A.R.S. 33-
729(A). First Financials complaints cited A.R.S. 33-721 and 33-725, not
33-729(A). In any event, A.R.S. 33-729(A) does not create a separate cause
of action from A.R.S. 33-721 or A.R.S. 33-725; it offers protection to
residential borrowers who incur purchase money obligations. Mid-Kansas
Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn of Wichita v. Dynamic Dev. Corp., 167 Ariz. 122, 127
(1991); see N. Ariz. Props. v. Pinetop Props. Grp., 151 Ariz. 9, 13 (App. 1986)
4
FIRST FINANCIAL v. CLAASSEN
Decision of the Court
sale took place. As noted above, First Financial completed the sale before
our mandate issued, rendering this provision superfluous on remand.
II. The New Judgment did not Violate the Merger or Law of the Case
Doctrines
5
FIRST FINANCIAL v. CLAASSEN
Decision of the Court
III. The Trial Court did not Abuse its Discretion in Awarding First
Financial Attorneys Fees and Costs
6
FIRST FINANCIAL v. CLAASSEN
Decision of the Court
IV. First Financial may Recover Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Costs
Incurred in this Appeal
We will award First Financial reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred
in this appeal upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate
Procedure (ARCAP) 21. We deny Claassens fee requests.
V. The Trial Court Failed to Account for Claassens First Appeal Cost
Award
7
FIRST FINANCIAL v. CLAASSEN
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION