Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01182/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01182-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian Vollmer and Peter M. Kane, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Randall C. Present, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1182-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A.’s (“Wells Fargo”)

Motion to Quash Lis Pendens. (Doc. 62). After reviewing the documents filed by the parties

and the relevant law, the Court issues the following order.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 3, 2010, pursuant to the Power of Sale in the Deed of Trust, First

American Title Insurance Company noticed a Trustee’s Sale of Plaintiffs’ property, located

at 4304 South 104th Avenue, Tolleson, Arizona (“the property”). (Notice of Trustee Sale,

Doc. 6, Exh. B). On May 4, 2010, Plaintiffs brought suit in state court seeking an emergency

temporary restraining order enjoining the sale of the property. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs also

recorded a notice of lis pendens with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office on May 7,

2010. (Doc. 62). On June 3, 2010, Defendants collectively removed the case to this Court.

(Doc. 1). One week later, Defendants moved to dismiss the case. (Doc. 6). After reviewing

Case 2:10-cv-01182-GMS Document 65 Filed 04/12/11 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

the parties’ arguments and the relevant law, this Court granted Defendants’ motion and

dismissed Plaintiffs’ action on January 4, 2011. (Doc. 54). On February 20, 2011, Wells

Fargo sent Plaintiffs a letter demanding that the lis pendens be removed. (Doc. 62 at 3).

Plaintiffs did not respond, and Wells Fargo filed the present motion on March 9, 2011.

Plaintiffs have not responded to Wells Fargo’s motion. 

II. DISCUSSION

Wells Fargo’s motion seeks an “order pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420 to quash the lis

pendens Plaintiffs recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office.” (Doc. 62 at 1).

“A lis pendens is a statutory method for a party to litigation to alert future purchasers or

encumbrancers of ‘the property affected . . . and the claims . . . made’ in the complaint.” In

re Farnsworth, 384 B.R. 842, 847 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2008) (quoting A.R.S. § 12–1191(B)).

A.R.S. §12-1191(B) serves two purposes: “(1) to give notice to future third parties that

whatever rights they might consider acquiring in the land could be subject to a superior right

asserted by the plaintiffs in a pending action, and (2) to enable the court in which the action

is pending to retain the power to fully deal with such property, to the exclusion of future

claimants.” Farnsworth, 384 B.R. 847 (citing Hatch Cos. Contracting, Inc. v. Ariz. Bank,

170 Ariz. 553, 556, 826 P.2d 1179, 1182 (App.1991)). Under Arizona law, in order to

determine “whether a lis pendens was wrongfully recorded, the court is limited to

considering whether the action is one affecting title to real property.” Santa Fe Ridge

Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Bartschi, 219 Ariz. 391, 395, 199 P.3d 646, 650 (App. 2008) (internal

citations and quotations omitted). “A lis pendens is groundless or has no basis only when

the claim that the action affects title to real property has no arguable basis or is not supported

by any credible evidence.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

Because their complaint was dismissed, Plaintiffs are not engaged in any pending

action against Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiffs have no statutory basis on which to premise

a lis pendens. See A.R.S. § 12-1191(B). Accordingly, Wells Fargo’s motion to quash the

lis pendens will be granted. See Bartschi, 219 Ariz. at 395, 199 P.3d at 650, see also Coit

v. Sutton Funding LLC, 2010 WL 2105116 (D. Ariz. May 24, 2010) (granting motion to

Case 2:10-cv-01182-GMS Document 65 Filed 04/12/11 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

quash lis pendens where underlying complaint was dismissed). 

Wells Fargo further asserts that pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420, it is entitled to “statutory

damages in the amount of $1,000 ” and “attorneys’ fees in connection incurred in obtaining

its statutory relief.” (Doc. 62 at 3). A.R.S. § 33-420 states that a person named in a

wrongfully filed lis pendens shall be, 

liable to the owner or title holder for the sum of not less than

one thousand dollars, or for treble actual damages, whichever is

greater, and reasonable attorney fees and costs as provided in

this section, if he wilfully refuses to release or correct such

document of record within twenty days from the date of a

written request from the owner or beneficial title holder of the

real property.

A.R.S. § 33-420(C). Thus, to be entitled to statutory damages, Wells Fargo must

demonstrate that Plaintiffs willfully refused to take appropriate measures to have the lis

pendens removed. Wells Fargo asserts that its February 10, 2011 letter evinced Plaintiffs’

willful refusal. (Doc. 62 at 1). Although Wells Fargo has provided a copy of the letter,

(Doc. 62, Exh. A), it has not provided any evidence that there was an actual or attempted

delivery of said letter. Therefore, Wells Fargo has not provided sufficient evidence that

Plaintiffs willfully refused to remove the lis pendens. Accordingly, the Court finds that

granting Wells Fargo monetary relief under A.R.S. § 33-420 would be premature and denies

that portion of the motion without prejudice. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Wells Fargo’s Motion to Quash Lis Pendens is

granted in part and denied in part;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wells Fargo’s motion as to quashing the lis

pendens is granted;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wells Fargo’s motion as to statutory damages is

denied without prejudice. 

/ / / 

Case 2:10-cv-01182-GMS Document 65 Filed 04/12/11 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case.

DATED this 7th day of April, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01182-GMS Document 65 Filed 04/12/11 Page 4 of 4