Background
Julie Friess’s property was subject to a deed of trust. After the lender foreclosed, Coconut Properties, LLC purchased the property at a June 2025 trustee’s sale and received a trustee’s deed. Coconut served Friess with a written demand to vacate, but she remained in the home, prompting Coconut to bring a forcible entry and detainer action.
Friess moved to dismiss, contending that the deed of trust had been fraudulently altered and that pending federal quiet-title litigation and a recorded lis pendens deprived the superior court of jurisdiction. She also asserted counterclaims based on alleged fraud in the foreclosure. The superior court denied dismissal of the eviction action, dismissed the counterclaims, and, after trial, awarded Coconut immediate possession, fair-market rental value, fees, and costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. A lis pendens gives notice of litigation but does not limit the superior court’s jurisdiction. Although a state court could lack jurisdiction if a federal court had first exercised in rem jurisdiction over the same property, Friess supplied no evidence showing that had occurred.
Coconut proved its superior right to actual possession by introducing a certified trustee’s deed and the demand to vacate. Friess’s challenges to the validity of the deed of trust, the foreclosure, and the trustee’s sale concerned title, which cannot be litigated in a forcible detainer action. In any event, she did not obtain an injunction before the sale and therefore waived objections to it under A.R.S. § 33-811(C); the trustee’s deed also provided conclusive evidence of statutory compliance as to Coconut, a purchaser for value without actual notice. Friess waived her undeveloped due-process and ADA arguments. The court denied Coconut’s request for appellate attorney fees but allowed it to seek taxable costs.
Key Takeaways
- An FED action decides the immediate right to possess property, not competing claims to title.
- A recorded lis pendens does not itself divest an Arizona superior court of jurisdiction.
- A trustor who does not obtain a pre-sale injunction generally waives objections to a trustee’s sale under A.R.S. § 33-811(C).
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the narrow, summary nature of Arizona eviction proceedings following trustee’s sales. Former owners generally cannot use an FED case to relitigate alleged defects in the loan documents or foreclosure process.
It also illustrates that a party invoking prior exclusive federal jurisdiction must provide evidence that the federal court actually exercised in rem jurisdiction over the property; merely identifying a federal case and recording a lis pendens is insufficient.