## Facts

- Dynamic Development Corp., a real estate developer, owned ten subdivision lots and planned to build ten speculative single-family homes for sale.
- Mid Kansas Federal Savings and Loan Association made ten separate construction loans totaling $803,250, each evidenced by a separate note and secured by a separate first deed of trust on an individual lot.
- After Dynamic could not complete construction under the original financing, Mid Kansas made an additional $150,000 loan secured by a second-position blanket deed of trust on seven unsold lots.
- Dynamic defaulted on loans related to five unsold houses; before the trustee’s sale under the second blanket deed of trust, one house sold, leaving four houses subject to sale.
- Mid Kansas purchased the four properties at the trustee’s sale on the second deed of trust with a credit bid equal to the balance on the second note ($101,986.67).
- Approximately $425,250 plus interest remained due on the four first-position construction notes; the houses were essentially complete but unoccupied and were held for sale, with evidence of combined market value around $556,000.
- Mid Kansas did not foreclose under the first deeds of trust; it sued Dynamic directly on the four first-position notes and asserted additional claims related to alleged removal of fixtures.

## Issues

1. Whether Arizona’s deed-of-trust anti-deficiency statute applies to a residential developer’s unoccupied spec homes held for sale.
2. Whether a lender holding both senior and junior deeds of trust may recover on the senior construction notes after acquiring the properties by foreclosing the junior deed of trust.
3. Whether suing on the senior notes, rather than foreclosing the senior deeds of trust, is barred as an end-run around anti-deficiency policy under Baker v. Gardner.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for Mid Kansas on the unpaid balances of the first-position notes, subject to the opinion’s limitations.
- The court held the anti-deficiency protections did not apply because the properties, though residential in design and size, were not “utilized for” one- or two-family dwellings in the hands of a commercial developer holding them as inventory for sale and unoccupied at the relevant time.
- The court held Mid Kansas was not barred from pursuing the debt on the first notes after purchasing the properties at the trustee’s sale under its junior blanket deed of trust.
- The court distinguished Baker v. Gardner because the statutory protection did not apply on these facts; therefore, the lender’s action on the notes was not an impermissible circumvention of anti-deficiency limits.

## Legal Principles

- Arizona’s deed-of-trust anti-deficiency protection for qualifying property turns on whether the property is both physically limited to and actually “utilized for” a one- or two-family dwelling; suitability for residential use alone is insufficient.
- The anti-deficiency statute is aimed at protecting certain home purchasers/occupants from personal liability after losing qualifying residential property, not commercial developers holding unoccupied spec houses for resale.
- When a lender holds both senior and junior deeds of trust, foreclosure of the junior lien and acquisition of title does not, by itself, extinguish the lender’s rights on the senior notes where anti-deficiency protections do not apply.
- Baker v. Gardner bars waiver of security and suit on the note only in transactions within the anti-deficiency statute’s coverage; where coverage is absent, enforcing the notes does not violate the statute’s purpose.
- Courts remain attentive to preventing double recovery concerns in settings where anti-deficiency protections apply, but those policy limits did not control this developer-inventory scenario.

## Conclusion

The court held that anti-deficiency protections for certain residential deeds of trust did not extend to a developer’s unoccupied spec homes held for sale, and it allowed the lender—after foreclosing its junior lien and taking title—to obtain a money judgment on the unpaid senior construction notes without violating Baker’s anti-circumvention rule.


Mid Kansas Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Wichita v. Dynamic Dev. Corp., 167 Ariz. 122, 804 P.2d 1310 (Ariz. 1991)