In a decision dated July 26, 2011, in Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that Chase Bank did not have to produce either the promissory note backing a Deed of Trust nor an assignment of the promissory note in an action brought by Hogan, the owner of the parcel of real property, to enjoin a Trustee’s Sale. The original loan had been made by Long Beach Mortgage Co. Notice of default and a substitution of Trustee were recorded by Washington Mutual. Later, Chase purchased the assets of Washington Mutual from the FDIC. The owner had originally complained that there was no evidence that Washington Mutual had the right to name the substitute Trustee, California Reconveyance Co., but later dropped that position and instead focused solely on the argument that in order to proceed with the Trustee’s Sale, the Beneficiary necessarily had to prove it owned the promissory note. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding the authority for the argument to apply only to forced sales under the UCC and not to Trustee’s Sales of land. What is disconcerting about this opinion is the fact that the Court dismissed the owner’s complaint without any evidence that Washington Mutual or Chase had any connection to the note or the Deed of Trust. The Court of Appeals faulted the owner for making an argument more appropriate to a UCC case than one involving a Trustee’ Sale, but it remains odd that the Courts would allow a Trustee’s Sale to go forward when the parties claiming to be the Beneficiary under the Deed of Trust cannot prove any connection to the note or Deed of Trust when challenged. Perhaps a more artful complaint could have raised the issue in a manner which would have forced to actually decide the issue head-on.