Court Opinion

ID: 9388017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 17:02:16.721555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:16.924141
License: Public Domain

IN THE

    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
                 ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC.,
                    AN ARIZONA CORPORATION,
                        Plaintiff/Appellant,

                                   v.

              JORGE OTHON AND SPOUSE OF JORGE OTHON,
                      IF ANY IN SEPTEMBER 2017,
                          Defendants/Appellees.

                          No. CV-21-0277-PR
                          Filed April 19, 2023

         Appeal from the Superior Court in Santa Cruz County
        The Honorable Denneen L. Peterson, Judge Pro Tempore
                       No. S1200CV201900192
                            REVERSED

             Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division Two
                       252 Ariz. 206 (App. 2021)
                              VACATED

COUNSEL:

Barry Becker (argued), Barry Becker, P.C., Phoenix, Attorney for Advanced
Property Tax Liens, Inc.

Gregory L. Droeger (argued), Law Offices of Gregory L. Droeger, Nogales,
Attorney for Jorge Othon

Ari Ramras, Ramras Legal, PLC, Phoenix, Attorney for Amicus Curiae
Land Title Association of Arizona

                                   1
 ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                 Opinion of the Court

JUSTICE KING authored the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF
JUSTICE BRUTINEL, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, and JUSTICES
BOLICK, LOPEZ, BEENE, and MONTGOMERY joined.

JUSTICE KING, Opinion of the Court:

¶1          Defendant Jorge Othon purchased property from Victalina
Carreon but never recorded the deed with the county recorder. The
property was encumbered by delinquent property taxes, and Plaintiff
Advanced Property Tax Liens, Inc. (“APTL”) purchased a tax lien on the
property. APTL then filed a tax lien foreclosure action against Carreon,
and the trial court entered default judgment.

¶2         Now, in this quiet title action, we must determine whether
Othon may collaterally challenge the default judgment entered in the
separate tax lien foreclosure action. Based on the record before us, we
conclude Othon may not.

                           I.     BACKGROUND

          A. The Property

¶3          In late 2014 or early 2015, Othon entered into an oral agreement
to purchase a commercial warehouse property (the “Property”) from
Carreon.      Both Othon and Carreon knew the property taxes were
delinquent. Understanding that payment of those taxes would eventually
fall to Othon, they deducted the outstanding taxes from the purchase price.
In purchasing the Property from Carreon, Othon did not sign a promissory
note or execute a deed of trust to secure the debt. The only agreement
between Carreon and Othon was oral; it was not memorialized in any
document. Othon commenced making payments to Carreon in late 2014

                                     2
    ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                    Opinion of the Court

or early 2015. Othon paid Carreon for the Property using money on which
he had not paid income taxes. 1

¶4         In 2015, APTL purchased the tax lien on the Property at a Santa
Cruz County tax lien auction, paying the unpaid property taxes and
accrued interest. At some point thereafter, Othon attempted to purchase
APTL’s tax lien, but APTL refused to sell. Othon intended to purchase the
tax lien and then foreclose on his own property to hide his failure to pay
taxes on the funds used to purchase the Property in the first place.

¶5         In 2017, Carreon executed a quitclaim deed conveying the
Property to Othon, after Othon had paid Carreon the purchase price in full.
Othon did not record the deed with the Santa Cruz County Recorder, notify
the Santa Cruz County Treasurer or Assessor of his ownership of the
Property, or provide a mailing address at which he could be reached.
Othon also did not pay the delinquent property taxes.

           B.   The Tax Lien Foreclosure Action

¶6          In January 2018, APTL mailed a pre-litigation notice of intent to
foreclose on the Property via certified mail to two addresses it identified as
belonging to Carreon, who remained the Property’s owner of record: (1) her
residential address of public record, and (2) the situs address for the
Property. The notice indicated the Santa Cruz County Treasurer was sent
a copy of the notice, stating “cc: Santa Cruz County Treasurer.” See A.R.S.
§ 42-18202(A) (requiring a tax lien purchaser, “[a]t least thirty days before
filing an action to foreclose the right to redeem,” to “send notice of intent to
file the foreclosure action” via at least one of two distinct methods); see also
4QTKIDZ, LLC v. HNT Holdings, LLC, 253 Ariz. 382, 385 ¶ 7 (2022) (“By its
terms, § 42-18202 delineates two distinct methods of satisfying the pre-
litigation notice requirement.”); § 42-18202(C)(2) (“A court may not enter
any judgment to foreclose the right to redeem under this article until the
purchaser sends the notice required by this section.”). The Postal Service
returned both envelopes, marking them as “Return to Sender, Unclaimed,

1 The Property was vacant at the time of Othon’s purchase. But shortly
thereafter, Othon rented the Property’s warehouse space to three
companies—two owned by him and one owned by his brother.

                                       3
 ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                 Opinion of the Court

Unable to Forward.” APTL purportedly made no further attempts to
locate Carreon for purposes of effecting the statutory pre-litigation notice.

¶7         In May 2018, APTL filed a tax lien foreclosure action against
Carreon. APTL attempted to serve Carreon with the summons and
complaint at her residential address of public record, but was unsuccessful.
The process server stated in his affidavit that Carreon no longer resided at
that address, which was “a VACANT and EMPTY HOUSE.” The Postal
Service indicated Carreon had moved without providing a forwarding
address. APTL then effected service by publishing the summons and
complaint in the Nogales International, a local newspaper. APTL filed an
affidavit of publication, indicating to the trial court that it was “necessary
to serve [Carreon] by publication.” The trial court ultimately determined
Carreon was “served in compliance with Rule 4 of the Arizona Rules of
Civil Procedure.” See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(l)(1) (allowing service by
publication “[i]f a party shows that the service provided by Rule 4.1(c)
through 4.1(k) . . . is impracticable”).

¶8         APTL asked the trial court to enter default judgment against
Carreon, alleging she was properly served but failed to answer. The court
entered default judgment. The Santa Cruz County Treasurer issued a
treasurer’s deed conveying the Property to APTL, and APTL recorded the
deed on March 12, 2019.

¶9         In April 2019, Carreon filed a motion to vacate the default
judgment in the foreclosure action on the basis that “service of the
summons and complaint was insufficient as a matter of law” and therefore
the judgment is void. As part of that motion, Carreon attached an affidavit
signed by Othon on April 29, 2019. In his affidavit, Othon falsely
disavowed his ownership of the Property, stating that Carreon was the
“landlord” of the Property and he was merely “her agent as to the
warehouse, collecting rents and overseeing maintenance.” Othon further
stated in his affidavit, “[a]t no time has either a process server appeared at
the warehouse seeking Ms. Carreron [sic], nor has any inquiry been made
by any person as to her whereabouts.”

¶10        Subsequently, Carreon moved to withdraw her motion to vacate
the default judgment. The trial court granted the motion with prejudice.

                                      4
 ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                 Opinion of the Court

           C.   This Quiet Title Action

¶11        On August 21, 2019, APTL filed this quiet title action against
Othon, seeking to establish APTL’s title to the Property. Othon filed an
answer and counterclaim, alleging that he “is seeking quiet title.” Therein,
Othon requested the trial court deny APTL’s claim for quiet title, determine
that the default judgment in the foreclosure action was void due to invalid
service on Carreon, and declare title to the Property vested in him.

¶12         APTL and Othon cross-moved for summary judgment. The
trial court granted Othon’s motion and denied APTL’s motion. The court
noted the general rule that service of process is personal to the person upon
whom service was to be made (here, Carreon in the foreclosure action).
But “an insurer has the well-recognized right to raise the issue of defective
service of process as to its insured,” citing Koven v. Saberdyne Sys., Inc.,
128 Ariz. 318, 321–22 (App. 1980), and “Othon’s position as to Carreon is
similar.” The court determined Othon had standing to challenge the
default judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient statutory
pre-litigation notice and improper service of process on Carreon “because
he was the owner of the property at the time of foreclosure pursuant to the
deed from Carreon.”

¶13         The court also determined that APTL failed to comply with the
pre-litigation notice requirements in § 42-18202 and did not properly serve
Carreon in the foreclosure action. Thus, the default judgment in the
foreclosure action “is void and did not operate to foreclose Othon’s rights.”

¶14         The court of appeals affirmed. Advanced Prop. Tax Liens v.
Othon, 252 Ariz. 206, 210 ¶ 1 (App. 2021). The court held that, like the
insurer in Koven, “Othon has ‘a definite and substantial interest’ in the
outcome of the tax lien foreclosure action” because he has a valid
unrecorded deed; therefore, he “has standing to defend himself and his
right to redeem by collaterally attacking that judgment as void.” Id. at 213
¶¶ 18–19. Further, the court held the default judgment in the foreclosure

                                      5
    ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                    Opinion of the Court

action was void because APTL failed to comply with the pre-litigation
notice requirements in § 42-18202. 2 Id. at 217 ¶ 35.

¶15        We have jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona
 Constitution.

                              II.    DISCUSSION

¶16       “We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, viewing the
 evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party
 opposing the motion.” Andrews v. Blake, 205 Ariz. 236, 240 ¶ 12 (2003).

           A. Standing

¶17          The trial court, court of appeals, and parties have addressed the
 issue here as one of standing—namely, whether Othon has standing in this
 quiet title action to challenge the default judgment entered in the separate
 foreclosure action.

¶18          On the issue of standing, we have previously stated that “[a]s a
 matter of sound judicial policy, . . . this [C]ourt has long required that
 persons seeking redress in Arizona courts must first establish standing to
 sue.    The Arizona requirement that plaintiffs establish standing is
 prudential and constitutes an exercise of judicial restraint.” Bennett v.
 Brownlow, 211 Ariz. 193, 195 ¶ 14 (2005) (internal citation omitted) (citing
 Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520, 524 ¶ 16 (2003)); see also Sears v. Hull,
 192 Ariz. 65, 69 ¶ 16 (1998) (discussing “standing to bring an action”).
 “To establish standing, we require that petitioners show a particularized
 injury to themselves.” Brownlow, 211 Ariz. at 196 ¶¶ 17–18 (concluding
 defendant’s conduct “cannot be said to have caused . . . damage to”
 plaintiff, and thus plaintiff “cannot establish standing to assert her claim”).

¶19        However, Othon’s answer and counterclaim for quiet title asks
 that “the Court find that Plaintiff, in Case No. CV-18-128 [the separate
 foreclosure action], perpetuated a fraud upon that Court, resulting in

2 In light of this decision, the court of appeals stated that it need not decide
whether the default judgment was also void on account of improper service
of process. Id. at 217 ¶ 35 n.13.

                                       6
  ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                  Opinion of the Court

invalid service over the defendant in that case” and “the judgment in Case
No. CV-18-128 be voided.” Consequently, in this quiet title action, Othon
seeks to collaterally attack the default judgment entered against Carreon
in the foreclosure action as void.

¶20         Thus, the relevant issue before us in this quiet title action is not
 whether Othon has standing to bring it. Instead, the more precise issue
 is whether Othon may use this action to collaterally attack the default
 judgment entered against Carreon in the foreclosure action as void. See
 Tube City Min. & Mill. Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 310 (1914) (“The present
 action is a collateral attack on the judgment of the superior court
 foreclosing the lien; collateral at least in the sense that the judgment is
 attacked in a separate action, and not on appeal. It is . . . an effort to
 obtain another and independent judgment which will destroy the effect of
 the former judgment.”). On this issue, we recently addressed when a
 judgment or order is subject to attack in a collateral proceeding on the basis
 that the judgment or order is void—just as Othon seeks to do here. In
 Shinn v. Arizona Board of Executive Clemency, we stated:

       The test for whether an order or judgment is void—and
       subject to collateral attack—was established nearly a century
       ago in Arizona. . . . In Hughes, we reiterated that “a judgment
       or order is void upon its face and,” therefore, “subject to
       attack at any time,” if the court entering the order or judgment
       fails to satisfy “three elements.” “These elements are
       (1) jurisdiction of the subject matter of the case, (2) of the
       persons involved in the litigation, and (3) to render the
       particular judgment or order entered.” If a court fails to
       satisfy any one of these three elements, the order or judgment
       is void and subject to collateral attack.

254 Ariz. 255, 262 ¶ 27 (2022) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Hughes
v. Indus. Comm’n, 69 Ariz. 193, 197 (1949)).

¶21        In discussing the issue of standing, Othon relies on Koven. See
 128 Ariz. at 321. In Koven, after a default judgment was entered against
 the defendant in a personal injury action, the defendant’s liability insurer
 sought to intervene in that same action to set aside the default judgment
 against its insured. Id. at 320–21. The Koven court determined the

                                       7
  ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                  Opinion of the Court

insurer had “a definite and substantial interest in the outcome of this
litigation” and thus had a right to intervene and “raise the issue of
defective service of process.” Id. at 321. Koven dealt with the right of a
liability insurer to intervene in the same action in which default judgment
was entered against its insured, because of its status as the insurer. Id.
This differs from the scenario before us, where Othon seeks to collaterally
attack a judgment entered in a separate proceeding. Thus, Koven does not
demonstrate that standing is the applicable legal issue here, though it is
useful in illustrating important distinctions in the relationship between
Othon and Carreon for our analysis that follows.

¶22        Accordingly, we must now determine whether Othon may, in
 this quiet title action, collaterally attack the default judgment entered
 against Carreon in the foreclosure action as void.

           B. Improper Service of Process on Carreon

¶23        “Any person who is entitled to redeem” a tax lien under A.R.S.
 §§ 42-18151 to -18155 “may redeem at any time before judgment is
 entered.” A.R.S. § 42-18206. Othon did not redeem the Property’s tax
 lien before default judgment was entered in the foreclosure action.
 Instead, he now collaterally attacks the default judgment entered in the
 foreclosure action on the basis that Carreon was improperly served by
 publication.

¶24        “Regarding default judgments, the general rule is that if a court
 had no jurisdiction because of lack of proper service on the defendant, any
 judgment would be void.” Wells v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 109 Ariz. 345,
 346 (1973); see also Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co., 99 Ariz. 363, 365 (1965) (“If
 the court had no jurisdiction because of lack of proper service on the
 defendant any judgment would be void . . . .”).

¶25         “In order to obtain a judgment In personam, personal service of
 the defendant is required.” Wells, 109 Ariz. at 347. Arizona Rule of Civil
 Procedure 4.1 sets forth the methods for a plaintiff to serve a summons and
 complaint upon a defendant, including personal service of an individual.
 See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(d). But service by publication is also permitted in
 certain instances. See Wells, 109 Ariz. at 347. Under Rule 4.1(l)(1), “[i]f a
 party shows that the service provided by Rule 4.1(c) through 4.1(k)—

                                       8
  ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                  Opinion of the Court

including an alternative means of service—is impracticable, the court may,
on motion and without notice to the person to be served, order that service
be accomplished by publication.” As relevant here, “[t]he court may
permit service by publication” if, among other things, “the serving party,
despite reasonably diligent efforts, has been unable to determine the
person’s current address” and “the motion is supported by affidavit that
sets forth the serving party’s reasonably diligent efforts to serve the
person.” Rule 4.1(l)(1).

¶26        Othon claims, though, that APTL’s affidavit in support of service
 by publication in the foreclosure action was improper because APTL did
 not make “even minimal inquiry” to determine whether it could serve
 Carreon at the Property. Further, the allegation in the affidavit “that
 examination of the [Property] revealed it to be ‘empty’ was patently false
 and was a material misrepresentation upon which the trial court . . . relied
 upon to allow service by publication.”

¶27         In the case of service by publication, we have stated that the
 serving party’s “diligence as a fact is prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the
 court.” Preston v. Denkins, 94 Ariz. 214, 222 (1963); see also Lown v.
 Miranda, 34 Ariz. 32, 36 (1928). “The jurisdiction of the court to enter any
 judgment must rest on the affidavit in support of service by publication.”
 Preston, 94 Ariz. at 223–24 (“Since this affidavit is ineffective to secure
 jurisdiction by publication the court necessarily had no power to render
 judgment against anyone in reliance thereon. The court not only had the
 power but the duty to expunge from the record the judgment which clearly
 is void.”). Nevertheless, “the general rule is that questions regarding
 service of process are personal to the person upon whom service was made
 and cannot be urged by another.” Koven, 128 Ariz. at 321; see also 62 Am.
 Jur. 2d Process § 285 (2023) (“Questions of effective service of process may
 be raised only by the person upon whom service was attempted.”).

¶28        However, this Court has held that an “insurer has the right to set
 aside a default judgment against its insured, not only on behalf of the
 insured, but on its own behalf.” Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Hudson Oil Co.,
 131 Ariz. 285, 288 (1982); see also Koven, 128 Ariz. at 321 (“The right of an
 insurer to move to set aside a default judgment against its insured, either
 on behalf of the insured or on its own behalf, is well recognized in
 Arizona.” (citing Camacho v. Gardner, 104 Ariz. 555 (1969))). This rule is

                                       9
  ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                  Opinion of the Court

in place because “the rendition of judgment against the insured . . . not
only creates a judgment debt in favor of the injured party, but at the same
time it creates a debt under the insurance contract between the judgment
debtor and his insurer,” and thus “the insurer should have a right to
defend against the default judgment.” Sandoval v. Chenoweth, 102 Ariz.
241, 245 (1967); see also Camacho, 104 Ariz. at 558 (stating the insurance
company’s “remedy is to mo[v]e to have the default judgment set aside”
(quoting Sandoval, 102 Ariz. at 246)).

¶29        Accordingly, Othon contends that his relationship with
 Carreon—in the form of a buyer and seller of land—is similar to the
 relationship between an insurer and insured, citing Koven, 128 Ariz. at 321.
 APTL disputes this contention. We agree with APTL that Othon and
 Carreon’s relationship as a buyer and seller of land is not analogous to that
 of an insurer and insured.

¶30          The insurer-insured situation presents a “legal representative”
 relationship whereby the liability insurer has a contractual obligation to
 defend legal claims brought against its insured. See Koven, 128 Ariz.
 at 321; see also Teufel v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 244 Ariz. 383, 385–86 ¶ 11
 (2018) (discussing a “liability insurer’s duty to defend”). Further, a
 liability insurer has exposure in the face of a judgment against its insured.
 See Sandoval, 102 Ariz. at 245 (“It seems to be settled that after recovering a
 judgment against an insured under a liability policy, the injured third
 person may collect such judgment by instituting garnishment proceedings
 against the liability insurer.”). This is the basis for the Koven court’s
 determination that the liability insurer had “a definite and substantial
 interest in the outcome of this litigation.” 128 Ariz. at 320; see also id. at
 320–21 (noting the insurer’s “potential liability” and “appellant’s
 threatened garnishment action” against the insurer “to garnish the funds
 due under the subject insurance policy”).

¶31        No such similar relationship involving intertwined interests
 exists between Othon and Carreon. The relationship between a buyer
 and seller of land is more properly characterized as one that is adversarial
 in nature, as it involves two parties on opposite sides of an arms-length
 transaction. See, e.g., Dewey v. Arnold, 159 Ariz. 65, 70 (App. 1988)
 (discussing reliance on “what the property would sell for between a
 willing buyer and a willing seller in an arms-length transaction” as the test

                                      10
 ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                 Opinion of the Court

for determining fair market value of property (quoting Honeywell Info. Sys.,
Inc. v. Maricopa County, 118 Ariz. 171, 174 (App. 1978))). As the buyer of
the Property and recipient of a quitclaim deed, Othon has no legal duty to
protect the interests of the seller from third party legal claims, as in the
insurer-insured context.

¶32         Othon further claims that he and Carreon have a representative
 relationship similar to that of an insurer and insured on the basis of A.R.S.
 § 33-435, which addresses covenants that are implied when the words
 “grant” or “convey” are used in a conveyance. But Othon received a
 quitclaim deed that does not contain the words “grant” or “convey.” See
 A.R.S. § 33-402(1) (“To quit claim: For the consideration of …….….., I
 hereby quit claim to A.B. all my interest in the following real property
 (describing it).”). To the extent that an implied warranty of title to
 property, free and clear, can be considered analogous to an insurer’s duty
 to defend and indemnify, it is irrelevant here because no such implied
 warranty arises from a quitclaim deed. See SWC Baseline & Crismon Invs.,
 L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, 228 Ariz. 271, 280–81 ¶ 29 (App. 2011)
 (“‘A quit claim deed conveys to the grantee no greater rights to the
 property conveyed than the grantor possessed . . . .’ Such a deed conveys
 any interest the grantor possesses in the property, but neither warrants nor
 claims that title is valid.” (citation omitted)). Therefore, § 33-435 does not
 establish here a relationship analogous to that of an insurer and its insured.

¶33        But even if Carreon’s quitclaim deed to Othon contained
 covenants or warranties with respect to the Property, this would only have
 required Carreon (as the grantor) to defend against claims from third
 parties, not vice-versa. See, e.g., 163 Am. Jur. Trials 1 General Warranty
 Deed § 8 (2023) (“In the typical wording of a covenant of warranty, the
 grantor covenants to warrant and defend the title conveyed by the deed
 against the lawful claims which may be asserted against it by third
 persons.”); Warranty, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“A covenant
 by which the grantor in a deed promises to secure to the grantee the estate
 conveyed in the deed, and pledges to compensate the grantee if the grantee
 is evicted by someone having better title.”). Thus, in this scenario, it
 would be Carreon—not Othon—who would be equivalent to the insurer
 in Koven. Accordingly, Othon’s citation to Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Old
 Dominion Co., 31 Ariz. 324 (1927) (discussing warranties from grantors to
 grantees), does not alter our conclusion.

                                      11
 ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                 Opinion of the Court

¶34         Finally, Othon cites Campbell v. Frazer Construction Co., 105 Ariz.
 40 (1969), and asks us to apply equitable principles in his favor. Campbell
 discussed, in the context of a motion to set aside a default judgment, that
 “two opposing principles of law . . . must be reconciled; on one hand, that
 the sanctity and finality of judgments be maintained, and on the other that
 controversies be decided on their merits.” 105 Ariz. at 41. This Court
 explained,

       In determining whether a defendant should be relieved of a
       default judgment the court must be guided by equitable
       principles. These principles require that a defendant be given
       a fair opportunity to litigate a disputed obligation and also
       require that a plaintiff, who has, according to regular and
       legal proceedings, secured a judgment be protected against a
       violation of the rule which requires the sanctity and security
       of a valid judgment. When the circumstances are such that it
       would be extremely unjust to enforce such a judgment, relief
       will be granted to the extent of allowing defendant a fair
       opportunity to present the matter on its merits.

Id. (quoting Coconino Pulp & Paper Co. v. Marvin, 83 Ariz. 117, 120 (1957)).

¶35         We conclude that equitable principles do not weigh in favor of
 Othon. In the foreclosure action, Othon signed and submitted an
 affidavit containing false information, rather than seeking to intervene in
 that action under Rule 24 or substitute in as a party under Rule 25. See
 Ariz. R. Civ. P. 24; Ariz. R. Civ. P. 25. Further, Othon neither recorded
 the deed with the county recorder, notified the county treasurer or assessor
 of his ownership of the Property, nor provided a mailing address at which
 he could be reached. Moreover, Othon indicated he wanted to purchase
 APTL’s tax lien and then foreclose on his own property to hide his failure
 to pay taxes on the funds he used to acquire the Property. Accordingly,
 this case does not present circumstances where “it would be extremely
 unjust to enforce [the default] judgment” entered in the foreclosure action.
 Campbell, 105 Ariz. at 41 (quoting Coconino Pulp & Paper Co., 83 Ariz.
 at 120).

                                      12
    ADVANCED PROPERTY TAX LIENS, INC. V. JORGE OTHON ET UX.
                    Opinion of the Court

¶36        We conclude, therefore, that Othon may not collaterally attack
 the default judgment entered in the foreclosure action. 3

                            III.   CONCLUSION

¶37        For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Othon may not, in
 this quiet title action, collaterally attack the default judgment entered in
 the foreclosure action. We vacate the court of appeals’ opinion and
 reverse the trial court’s judgment.

3 When APTL initiated this quiet title action in 2019, Othon argued the
default judgment entered in the foreclosure action was void because of
APTL’s failure to comply with the pre-litigation notice requirements in
§ 42-18202. But after we issued our decision in 4QTKIDZ, Othon conceded
through counsel at oral argument that APTL complied with § 42-18202 and
he was abandoning that issue.

                                     13