FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, its successors and/or assigns, Plaintiff/Appellee,
KATHRINA H. TOBIAS, Defendant/Appellant.
Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County CV2012-001773 The Honorable Michael L. Barth, Commissioner
Pite Duncan, Phoenix By Eric L. Cook Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Kathrina H. Tobias, Scottsdale Defendant/Appellant in Propria Persona
Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
¶1 Kathrina Tobias appeals from a Maricopa County Superior Court judgment finding her guilty in a forcible entry and detainer ("FED") action. We affirm the judgment.
¶2 GMAC Mortgage, LLC ("GMAC") purchased Tobias's Scottsdale property in a June 2012 trustee's sale. GMAC then sold the property to appellee Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). Fannie Mae made a written demand dated July 18, 2012 for Tobias to deliver possession of the property, and the demand was sent to Tobias via first class mail on July 23, 2012.
¶3 Fannie Mae filed the FED action at issue in September, 2012. Tobias moved to dismiss the complaint. Fannie Mae responded and also moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted Fannie Mae's motion for judgment on the pleadings in November 2012 and entered final judgment. Tobias timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).
ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4 Tobias argues that the trial court erred by granting judgment on the pleadings because she asserts that ownership of the property's rightful title remains at issue. She also argues that the trial court violated several of her federal constitutional rights as well as the Arizona Rules of Evidence.
¶5 A FED action is a statutory proceeding meant to give the rightful owners of real property a "summary, speedy, and adequate remedy" for obtaining actual possession. Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. Rushing, 64 Ariz. 199, 203-04, 167 P.2d 394, 397 (1946); Andreola v. Arizona Bank, 26 Ariz.App. 556, 557, 550 P.2d 110, 111 (App. 1976). Judgment on the pleadings for plaintiffs is proper when the complaint states a claim for relief and the answer does not raise a legally cognizable defense or effectively deny material allegations. Pac. Fire Rating Bureau v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 83 Ariz. 369, 376, 321 P.2d 1030, 1035 (1958). In reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, conclusions of law are not admitted and our review is de novo. Young v. ...