## Facts

- Charles Martin Bisbee executed and recorded two “deeds of trust and assignment of rents” encumbering approximately 100 acres of Arizona real property to secure loans of $600,000 and $218,000 in favor of Security National Bank & Trust Co.
- Both instruments identified the beneficiary and the encumbered property and were recorded, but neither instrument designated a trustee.
- Bisbee and Wanta Rhea Bisbee later filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case; the encumbered property was sold, and after undisputed liens were paid, $834,076.23 remained in escrow pending resolution of competing claims.
- As debtor-in-possession, Bisbee filed an adversary proceeding seeking to invalidate the bank’s claimed security interest in the sale proceeds, arguing the trust deeds were invalid under Arizona’s Trust Deeds Act because no trustee was named.
- The FDIC, as successor to the bank, contended the instruments were valid deeds of trust despite the omission.
- The bankruptcy court certified two state-law questions to the Arizona Supreme Court concerning validity under the Trust Deeds Act and, if invalid, whether the documents would nonetheless operate as mortgages.

## Issues

1. Whether a deed of trust on Arizona real property is invalid under the Arizona Trust Deeds Act solely because it fails to designate a trustee.
2. If such an instrument were invalid as a deed of trust, whether it would nonetheless constitute a mortgage or other enforceable real property security interest under A.R.S. § 33-702(A).

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court answered the first certified question in the negative: failure to name a trustee does not invalidate an otherwise compliant deed of trust.
- Because the instruments were valid deeds of trust, the court did not reach the second certified question and treated it as moot.
- The matter returned to the federal bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with the answers to the certified questions.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Arizona Trust Deeds Act, a recorded instrument intended as a deed of trust is not void merely because it omits the name of the trustee.
- The Act does not expressly make trustee designation at execution or recordation a condition of validity; courts will not infer invalidation absent clear statutory direction.
- Where an instrument identifies the property, the secured obligation, and the beneficiary and is recorded, the omission of a trustee does not defeat the security arrangement or the recording system’s notice function.
- A trustee’s role in the deed-of-trust system primarily concerns administration and foreclosure mechanics; the trustee may be appointed later without negating the underlying lien.
- When the first certified issue is resolved in a manner that sustains trust-deed validity, alternative theories (such as mortgage characterization) need not be addressed.

## Conclusion

The court held that Arizona law treats the absence of a named trustee in a recorded deed of trust as a technical omission that does not invalidate the deed of trust, leaving mortgage recharacterization questions unnecessary when the instrument otherwise functions as a trust deed.


In re Bisbee v. Security National Bank & Trust Co. of Norman, 157 Ariz. 31, 754 P.2d 1135 (1988)