Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 14-0468
05-21-2015
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. VIRGINIA RUIZ, Defendant/Appellant.
COUNSEL Virginia Ruiz, Buckeye Defendant/Appellant Pite Duncan, LLP, Phoenix By Philip J. Giles Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2014-000595
The Honorable Michael L. Barth, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Virginia Ruiz, Buckeye
Defendant/Appellant
Pite Duncan, LLP, Phoenix
By Philip J. Giles
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. THUMMA, Judge:
¶1 Virginia Ruiz appeals from the superior court's judgment granting Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006-4, possession of certain real property in this forcible entry and detainer (FED) action. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Deutsche Bank filed this action against Ruiz after she refused to vacate Buckeye real property purchased by Deutsche Bank at a trustee's sale in 2012. The complaint attached a copy of the recorded trustee's deed conveying the property to Deutsche Bank in its capacity as a trustee. After Ruiz filed an answer, she moved to dismiss and Deutsche Bank moved for judgment on the pleadings. After hearing argument, the superior court denied Ruiz' motion, found Ruiz guilty of forcible detainer and entered partial judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (2015). This court has jurisdiction over Ruiz' timely appeal pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-2101(A)(1) and -120.21(A)(1).
Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
DISCUSSION
¶3 Because Ruiz has not provided a transcript from the hearing, this court assumes the transcript supports the judgment. See Johnson v. Elson, 192 Ariz. 486, 489 ¶ 11, 967 P.2d 1022, 1025 (App. 1998). Moreover, Ruiz' brief on appeal does not cite the record as required. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a); see also Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305 ¶ 62, 211 P.3d 1272, 1289 (App. 2009) (noting such failure "can constitute abandonment and waiver of [a] claim"). Even absent any waiver, however, Ruiz has not shown the entry of judgment was error.
¶4 Ruiz' central contention is that the superior court lacked jurisdiction because Deutsche Bank was not the proper party to bring the FED action. Ruiz alleges Deutsche Bank "is not the aggrieved party," asserting that "JP Morgan Chase [or Washington Mutual] on behalf of Long Beach Mortgage Company" is the correct real party in interest. Ruiz' assertion, however, is contrary to express terms of the trustee's deed, which conveyed the property "to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006-4." Accordingly, Ruiz has failed to show Deutsche Bank could not properly bring this action, meaning her argument that the superior court lacked jurisdiction also fails. For these same reasons, her argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to substitute "Deutsche Bank for JP Morgan Chase" fails.
¶5 Ruiz also argues Deutsche Bank's notice demanding possession was defective, thus rendering the complaint defective, because the party "on the [trustee's] deed is not" the party who gave notice demanding possession. Deutsche Bank, however, was the party named in the trustee's deed and Ruiz does not dispute that Deutsche Bank demanded possession. Moreover, Ruiz cannot in this FED action contest "the underlying validity of the deed of trust itself." Andreola v. Arizona Bank, 26 Ariz. App. 556, 557, 550 P.2d 110, 111 (1976). Moreover, Ruiz has not shown that Deutsche Bank failed to state a claim for relief in this action. See Ariz. R.P. Evict. Actions (RPEA) 5(b).
¶6 Ruiz also purports to challenge title, arguing the superior court lacked jurisdiction because the notice of trustee's sale leading to Deutsche Bank's purchase of the property in 2012 did not name Deutsche Bank. Ruiz has not shown that the notice of trustee's sale was required to name Deutsche Bank. In addition, the notice Ruiz filed with the superior court names Deutsche Bank. Furthermore, Ruiz cannot now challenge the validity of the 2012 trustee's sale, or in this action, the validity of the trustee's deed. See A.R.S. § 33-811; Andreola, 26 Ariz. App. at 557, 550 P.2d at 111. Nor has Ruiz shown how A.R.S. § 10-1502 divested the superior court of jurisdiction, particularly given A.R.S. § 10-1501(B). Finally, Ruiz has not shown that the superior court's orders were the result of "[f]raud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct" on the part of Deutsche Bank. See RPEA 15(a)(10).
Ruiz has not shown how a September 4, 2008 notice of trustee's sale, provided for the first time on appeal, alters the analysis. See also Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13.1(b).
--------
CONCLUSION
¶7 Because Ruiz has not shown reversible error, the superior court's judgment is affirmed.