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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

AUDIE JAY REYNOLDS, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 18-0689 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County

No. S0900CV201800002

The Honorable Robert J. Higgins, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Phoenix

By Sean K. McElenney, Daniel P. Crane

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee

Audie Jay Reynolds, Scottsdale

Defendant/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

FILED 12-26-2019
US BANK v. REYNOLDS

Decision of the Court

2

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Audie Reynolds appeals the superior court’s judgment 

finding him and his wife guilty of forcible detainer and awarding U.S. Bank 

National Association, as Trustee for Residential Asset Mortgage Products, 

Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-NC2 

(“US Bank”) immediate and exclusive possession of a residence in 

Overgaard. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In December 2017, US Bank purchased Reynolds’s residence 

at a trustee’s sale and promptly recorded the trustee’s deed. Later that

month, US Bank mailed and personally served Reynolds with a notice to 

vacate the premises. Reynolds did not leave, and US Bank filed this forcible 

entry and detainer (“FED”) action.

¶3 Reynolds answered US Bank’s complaint with general 

denials, pointed out that the complaint listed the wrong entity as successor 

trustee, and proffered alleged defects in the trustee’s sale as affirmative 

defenses. US Bank moved to amend the complaint to reference the correct

successor trustee and separately moved for judgment on the pleadings. 

Reynolds did not file a new answer, but rather opted to rely on oral 

argument at the forcible detainer hearing.

¶4 Relying on US Bank’s superior right to possession under the 

trustee’s deed, the superior court found Reynolds and his wife guilty of 

forcible detainer and entered judgment in favor of US Bank for immediate 

possession of the property. The court later stayed the judgment pending 

appeal, conditioned on Reynolds paying into court the rental value of 

$1,000 per month. See A.R.S. § 12-1182(b). Reynolds appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶5 Reynolds argues the superior court erred by entering 

judgment in favor of US Bank. First, he claims that US Bank was not 

“executor, administrator, guardian, bailee, or grantee” of the trustee’s deed 

and thus could not prosecute the FED action as real party in interest. But 

US Bank—specifically, “U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for 

Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed PassThrough Certificates, Series 2006-NC2”—was expressly designated as 

grantee under the trustee’s deed. And as owner of the property by virtue 

of the trustee’s deed, US Bank established its right to possession. See 

Carrington Mortg. Servs. LLC v. Woods, 242 Ariz. 455, 457, ¶ 12 (App. 2017).
US BANK v. REYNOLDS

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 Second, Reynolds urges that defects in the trustee’s sale

render the trustee’s deed invalid and thus undermine US Bank’s asserted 

right to possession. But the merits of US Bank’s title are beyond the scope 

of an FED action. See A.R.S. § 12-1177(A) (“[In an FED action], the only 

issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not 

be inquired into.”); see also Curtis v. Morris, 186 Ariz. 534, 534 (1996). The 

only issue was the right of possession, and as described above, US Bank had 

the right of possession under the trustee’s deed.

¶7 Any challenge to the trustee’s sale—such as Reynolds’s claim 

that the successor trustee was not authorized to act as a trustee under 

Arizona law—must be pursued before the sale has been completed; the 

trustor may not challenge the completed sale based on pre-sale objections.

See A.R.S. § 33-811(C); BT Capital, LLC v. TD Serv. Co. of Ariz., 229 Ariz. 299,

301, ¶ 11 (2012). And here, Reynolds apparently attempted to halt the 

trustee’s sale before it went forward based on similar objections to the 

successor trustee, but he was unsuccessful. Reynolds v. Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC, 719 Fed. Appx. 673 (9th Cir. 2018) (mem.), aff’g Reynolds v. 

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, CV-17-08123-PCT-JJT, 2017 WL 4653037 (D. Ariz. 

Aug. 18, 2017). To the extent he now attempts to raise new issues, the 

trustee’s deed raised a presumption that the sale comported with statutory 

requirements, see A.R.S. § 33-811(B), and Reynolds has offered no basis to 

overcome either this presumption or waiver under § 33-811(C).

¶8 Finally, Reynolds’s challenge to the successor trustee is 

factually flawed. He notes that the trustee’s deed is signed by “C. Scott 

‘Trustee Sale Assistant’” and argues that “Assistant Trustees” are not 

qualified to conduct trustee’s sale under Arizona law. But the trustee was 

“Western Progressive – Arizona, Inc.,” not “C. Scott.” See also Reynolds, 719 

Fed. Appx. 673. “C. Scott” did not substitute as trustee, but rather was a

“duly-authorized” agent signing on behalf of the corporate successor 

trustee. See Samaritan Found. v. Goodfarb, 176 Ariz. 497, 502 (1993) (noting 

that a corporation “can only act through its agents”); Best Choice Fund, LLC 

v. Low & Childers, P.C., 228 Ariz. 502, 510, ¶ 26 (App. 2011) (as amended). 

Western Progressive remained the successor trustee, and Reynolds’s 

challenge to that entity’s authority to act as a trustee under Arizona law has 

already been resolved against him. See Reynolds, 719 Fed. Appx. 673

(affirming dismissal of Reynolds’s challenge to the trustee’s sale “because 

Reynolds failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Western Progressive–

Arizona, Inc. was not a proper trustee authorized to initiate the non-judicial 

foreclosure process under Arizona state law”).
US BANK v. REYNOLDS

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm the forcible detainer judgment. US Bank requests 

an award of attorney’s fees on appeal but cites no authority for its request. 

Although we may award fees as a sanction for a frivolous appeal, in an 

exercise of discretion, we decline to do so. As the prevailing party on 

appeal, US Bank is entitled to an award of costs upon compliance with 

ARCAP 21.