From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Southwest Savings and Loan Association v. Mason

Supreme Court of Arizona
Mar 10, 1988
156 Ariz. 210 (Ariz. 1988)

Summary

vacating court of appeals' opinion

Summary of this case from Luedtke v. Arizona Family Restaurants of Tucson

Opinion

No. CV-87-0455-PR.

March 10, 1988.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Pima County, No. 231524, J. Richard Hannah, J.

Chandler, Tullar, Udall Redhair by Edwin M. Gaines, Jr., Tucson, for defendants/appellees George and Dorothy E. Mason.

King Frisch, P.C. by Ronald N. Allen, Tucson, for defendants/appellees Mohr and Grabinski.

Aboud Aboud, P.C. by Michael J. Aboud, Tucson, for plaintiff/appellant.

Dennis A. Rosen, Ltd. by Gayle D. Reay, Tucson, for defendants/appellees Barbara A. and Michael T. Mason.


In this case a lender holding a note evidencing and mortgage securing a debt for purchase of a single family residence has attempted to waive the security of the mortgage and sue the obligors in debt. A.R.S. § 33-729(A) prohibits those holding purchase money mortgages on certain types of residential property from enforcing the judgment obtained in a foreclosure action against "any other property of the judgment debtor." It further provides that no "general execution [may] be issued" to enforce such judgment, "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary."

On the other hand, A.R.S. § 33-722, passed many years before § 33-729, provides that where a plaintiff brings separate actions on the debt and to foreclose, "plaintiff shall elect" which action to prosecute and the other must be dismissed. Of course, an election to waive the mortgage and sue on the debt is a useless act unless the judgment obtained in such an action may be enforced against property other than the mortgaged premises.

The court of appeals held that, notwithstanding A.R.S. § 33-729, a lender/mortgagee might waive the security of the mortgage and bring an action to collect the debt. Southwest Savings Loan Association v. Mason, 155 Ariz. 443, 747 P.2d 604 (Ct.App. 1987). In their petition for review, the obligors have urged that the court of appeals incorrectly decided this important issue of law. We granted their petition for review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5( 3) and A.R.S. § 12-120.24.

Shortly after we accepted review, counsel advised the court that the parties had reached a settlement of all issues. The parties have now filed the appropriate stipulation. The parties having so stipulated, the matter will be dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own fees and costs. Review having been granted, we exercise our discretion to order that the opinion of the court of appeals be vacated.

GORDON, C.J., and CAMERON, HOLOHAN and MOELLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Southwest Savings and Loan Association v. Mason

Supreme Court of Arizona
Mar 10, 1988
156 Ariz. 210 (Ariz. 1988)

vacating court of appeals' opinion

Summary of this case from Luedtke v. Arizona Family Restaurants of Tucson

exercising discretion to vacate court of appeals opinion despite parties reaching settlement after review was granted

Summary of this case from Clay v. Arizona Interscholastic Ass'n
Case details for

Southwest Savings and Loan Association v. Mason

Case Details

Full title:SOUTHWEST SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, an Arizona corporation, fka…

Court:Supreme Court of Arizona

Date published: Mar 10, 1988

Citations

156 Ariz. 210 (Ariz. 1988)
751 P.2d 526

Citing Cases

Baker v. Gardner

At first reading, the statutes conflict: if § 33-722 applies, the Bakers obtain a judgment for the balance of…

Luedtke v. Arizona Family Restaurants of Tucson

As we have granted review, we exercise our discretion and vacate that part of the court of appeals' opinion…