Hatch Companies Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Bank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because client was aware attorney was recording lis pen-dens, attorney’s knowledge would be imputed to client
• holding that a beneficiary of a deed of trust had standing to sue for minimum statutory damages after a groundless lis pendens had been recorded
• holding that the “beneficiary of a deed of trust is a beneficial title holder for the property conveyed within the meaning of” A.R.S. § 33-420
• equating “rights incident to title” with a “connection . . . with rights in real property”
• explaining “deed of trust ‘conveys’ the trust property to a trustee who holds the property for the benefit of the beneficiary designated in the deed of trust”
• a lis pendens 22 “also prevents third persons from acquiring interests in the property during the pendency 23 of the litigation that would prevent the court from granting suitable and effective relief”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).