Rights to the successful bidder for auction sales involving properties subject to deed of trust are determined by statutes governing deeds of trust and not common law

In BT Capital, LLC v. T.D. Serv. Co. of Ariz., 229 Ariz. 299, 301 (Ariz. 2012), the court held that in cases where the sale is not deemed as complete, then for auction sales involving properties subject to deed of trust, the plaintiff's rights are determined by the statutes governing deeds of trust and not the common law. In this case the bidder filed a lawsuit against the trustee and the trust beneficiary seeking title to the property and damages. The property was subject to a deed of trust, and auctioned at a sale in 2009. In vacating the order of court of appeals, Supreme Court determined that the issue of who was the rightful owner of the property became moot as a result of a lawfully conducted trustee's sale that occurred in July 2010. The filing of lis pendens does not establish the validity of the bidder's claim or give it precedence over the pre-existing deed of trust for purposes of § 33-811(E), the sale was not completed because the bidder's payment was rejected and there was no basis for a damages claim as there was no appeal from the dismissal of a tort claim.
 
Plaintiff of this case contented that it was the successful bidder at the auction in June 2009, and had viable breach of contract claims based on case law recognizing such claims by bidders against auctioneers. “At common law, the highest bidder at an auction can be said to have entered into a contract for the sale of land on acceptance of the offeree's bid.” BT Capital, LLC v. T.D. Serv. Co. of Ariz., 229 Ariz. 299, 301 (Ariz. 2012) (See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 28 (1981)) ("auctioneer invites offers from successive bidders which he may accept or reject"); (See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 30 illus. 4) ("A makes a bid at an auction sale. By the usual custom at auctions, the auctioneer may accept by letting the hammer fall, by saying 'Sold', or by any words manifesting acceptance.").
 
“The court held that plaintiff's rights are determined by the statutes governing deeds of trust and not the common law.” Id. at 302.  The court further held that, “if defendant's refusal to accept payment was improper, plaintiff might have brought an action seeking to compel defendant to complete the sale consistent with its statutory obligations.” See A.R.S. §§ 33-801(10) (providing that "[t]he trustee's obligations to the trustor, beneficiary and other persons are as specified in this chapter, together with any other obligations specified in the trust deed"); 33-807(E) ("[t]he trustee need only be joined as a party in legal actions pertaining to a breach of the trustee's obligations under this chapter or under the deed of trust"). Id.  “But that statutory claim was mooted by the 2010 trustee's sale at which PCF acquired the property. Moreover, because the statutes do not recognize any right to recover damages in these circumstances, they preclude a third party like plaintiff from asserting claims for common law breach of contract against the trustee or beneficiary.” Id.