The Arizona Court of Appeals recently clarified how the state’s debt collection statute of limitations applies to debt created by a land sale contract.

Arizona has a six-year statute of limitations to enforce installment debt created by a written contract, which is codified at A.R.S. § 12-548. A lender must enforce the debt through foreclosure or a lawsuit within six years after the cause of action accrues. The Arizona Court of Appeals and Arizona Supreme Court have issued numerous opinions over the last several years clarifying when a cause of action accrues for mortgages and credit card debt. A recent decision provides further guidance for lenders and loan servicers enforcing land sale contracts where title to the property does not transfer until the loan is paid in full.

In Velazquez v. FMZ Industries, Inc. (FMZ), FMZ sold property to a purchaser under a sale agreement, which granted it the right to installment payments for the sale amount. FMZ and the purchaser agreed that FMZ would tender title to the property after the purchaser fulfilled its payment obligations. The purchaser stopped making payments under the agreement and purportedly sold the property to a third party. The third party filed suit against FMZ for quiet title, claiming the six-year statute of limitations barred foreclosure and FMZ’s ability to enforce its title to the property.

The superior court ruled in the third party’s favor holding the statute of limitations to enforce the debt had run and, therefore, title should be quieted in the third party’s name. However, the court of appeals reversed the decision, explaining that FMZ had two distinct rights: 1) the right to installment payments; and 2) the right to ownership of the property. Section 12-548 applies to FMZ’s ability to enforce the first right, but not the second.

Specifically, FMZ’s title to the property was not created by the land sale contract and remained intact. The court reasoned that while the statute of limitations may apply to block enforcement of the debt created by the contract, the statute cannot extinguish a right to land ownership. Thus, the opinion provides Arizona lenders and loan servicers another avenue to seek recovery where the statute of limitations to enforce the debt created by a land sale contract may have run.

Troutman Pepper attorneys have significant experience defending financial institutions in statute of limitations litigation across the country and have helped created favorable case law in this area.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Erin Edwards Erin Edwards

Erin focuses her litigation practice on defending financial institutions against class actions and individual claims involving loan origination, servicing, and investments. This includes lawsuits brought under federal statutes — RESPA, TILA, FCRA, FDCPA, TCPA, EFTA, and UDAAP — as well as state-specific fair…

Erin focuses her litigation practice on defending financial institutions against class actions and individual claims involving loan origination, servicing, and investments. This includes lawsuits brought under federal statutes — RESPA, TILA, FCRA, FDCPA, TCPA, EFTA, and UDAAP — as well as state-specific fair lending, collections, and deceptive trade practice laws. Erin also has significant experience resolving property title, transfer, and lien priority disputes for her clients. Her in-depth understanding of the financial services industry gives her a unique advantage in prosecuting and defending high-stakes deceptive business practices claims, such as trade secret misappropriation and Sherman Act violations.

Photo of Mary C. Zinsner Mary C. Zinsner

Mary focuses her practice on litigation and strategy in lender liability, check and bank operation, class action, consumer finance, fiduciary matters, and creditor’s rights disputes. While Mary litigates extensively in the federal and state trial and appellate courts in Virginia, Maryland, and the…

Mary focuses her practice on litigation and strategy in lender liability, check and bank operation, class action, consumer finance, fiduciary matters, and creditor’s rights disputes. While Mary litigates extensively in the federal and state trial and appellate courts in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, she represents banking clients in cases of all sizes nationwide.

Photo of Stefanie Jackman Stefanie Jackman

Stefanie takes a holistic approach to working with clients both through compliance counseling and assessment relating to consumer products and services, as well as serving as a zealous advocate in government inquiries, investigations, and consumer litigation.