Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00891/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00891-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ISRAEL GARCIA; JESSENIA M.

GARCIA, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC fka GMAC

MORTGAGE CORPORATION;

EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE SERVICES,

LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0891-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Vacate Foreclosure Sale of Plaintiffs Israel

and Jessenia M. Garcia. (Dkt. # 13.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the

Motion.

In 2006, Plaintiffs purchased real property located at 6526 South 41st Lane, Phoenix,

AZ 85041. Plaintiffs obtained financing for the property in the amount of $389,524.00

pursuant to a promissory note. The promissory note was secured by a deed of trust. On or

about May 6, 2009, a trustee’s sale was held and the property was sold. (Dkt. # 13 at 2.) On

May 11, 2009, Plaintiffs filed this Motion, arguing that the Court has authority to vacate the

May 6 trustee’s sale pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Dkt. # 13 at 1.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states that “on motion and just terms, the court

may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding .

Case 2:09-cv-00891-GMS Document 17 Filed 06/18/09 Page 1 of 2
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 -

. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see also 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay

Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2851 (2d ed. 1995) (“Rule 60 regulates the

procedures by which a party may obtain relief from a final judgment.”).

Arizona law confers power of sale upon the trustee holder of a Deed of Trust

independent of the judicial system. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-807; see also In re Krohn, 203 Ariz.

205, 208, 52 P.3d 774, 777 (2002) (citing Patton v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 118 Ariz.

473, 477, 578 P.2d 152, 156 (1978)) (“A mortgage generally may be foreclosed only by

filing a civil action while, under a Deed of Trust, the trustee holds a power of sale permitting

him to sell the property out of court with no necessity of judicial action.”). “[N]onjudicial

foreclosure statutes . . . reflect a carefully crafted balancing of the interests of beneficiaries,

trustors, and trustees. Trustees . . . need to have clearly defined responsibilities to enable

them to discharge their duties efficiently and to avoid embroiling the parties in timeconsuming and costly litigation.” TransAmerica Fin. Serv., Inc. v. Lafferty, 175 Ariz. 310,

314, 856 P.2d 1188, 1192 (Ct. App. 1993) (citing I.E. Assoc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 702

P.2d 596, 600 (Cal. 1985)) (emphasis added).

Here Plaintiffs do not seek relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding of this

Court. Rather, Plaintiffs seek relief from a nonjudicial trustee’s sale that proceeded

independent of any Court involvement. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is not

applicable in such circumstances.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Foreclosure Sale

(Dkt. # 13) is DENIED.

DATED this 18th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00891-GMS Document 17 Filed 06/18/09 Page 2 of 2