In re Estate of Olson

5 Citing cases

  1. Ciena Capital Funding, LLC v. Krieg's, Inc.

    394 P.3d 39 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a party's citation of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 did not conflict with the party's choice of New York law to govern the at-issue contract

    Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered, we determine de novo whether any genuine dispute of material fact exists and whether the trial court applied the law correctly. In re Estate of Olson , 223 Ariz. 441, ¶ 11, 224 P.3d 938, 941 (App. 2010) ; see also Target Corp. v. Prestige Maint. USA, Ltd. , 351 P.3d 493, ¶¶ 18–19 (Colo. App. 2013) (forum court will use its own standards of appellate review even if applying another jurisdiction's substantive law), citing Restatement § 122 cmt. a. A denial of summary judgment is generally not an appealable order.

  2. Grabois v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.

    No. 1 CA-CV 13-0164 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    The JMOL ruling against Appellants on their quiet title claim, which sought to recover those properties, is not challenged on appeal, meaning Appellants lack standing to assert these claims. See In re Estate of Olson, 223 Ariz. 441, 446 ¶ 23, 224 P.3d 938, 943 (App. 2010) (rejecting award under A.R.S. § 33-420 where another party may have acted wrongfully but "there ha[d] been no determination of fraudulent activity by any of the parties"). Moreover, it was Jimenez and Yacoub (not BMO) who recorded the joint tenancy deeds that transferred Lots 55/56 and Fountain Hills to Jimenez and Yacoub in 2007.

  3. Gulf Union, Inc. v. Jewel Inv. Co.

    No. 1 CA-CV 11-0357 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2013)

    Additionally, we review de novo the trial court's legal conclusions, including those on questions of statutory interpretation. In re Estate of Olson, 223 Ariz. 441, 444, ¶ 11, 224 P.3d 938, 941 (App. 2010); Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 216 Ariz. 216, 219, ¶ 6, 165 P.3d 194, 197 (App. 2007). We conclude that the pleadings do not establish sufficient facts to entitle Jewel to judgment on the pleadings.

  4. SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. Partnership

    228 Ariz. 271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that conversion claims apply only to chattels, and not to real property

    ¶ 26 Although Augusta Ranch argues on appeal that it could sue under A.R.S. § 33–420(A) as the “beneficial owner” of the Corner, it offers no legal authority for its assertion that a party in its position is a beneficial owner for purposes of the statute. Cf. In re Estate of Olson, 223 Ariz. 441, 446, ¶ 23, 224 P.3d 938, 943 (App.2010) (beneficiary of deed of trust may bring claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 33–420(A)). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment awarding damages to Augusta Ranch against SWC, Cal Bank and A.R. Development pursuant to A.R.S. § 33–420(A).

  5. Bishara v. U.S. Bank Home Mortg.

    No. CV 11-1905-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. May. 7, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Further, it does not appear to the Court that this action arises out of contract so that attorneys' fees would be appropriate under Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-341.01. See In re Estate of Olson, 224 P.3d 938, 943 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). However, to the extent that Defendants wish to pursue an award of attorneys' fees and costs, the Court will consider whether such an award is appropriate upon Defendants' filing of a motion for attorneys' fees in compliance with LRCiv. 54.2.