In Steinberger v. McVey ex rel. County of Maricopa 318 P.3d 419 (Ariz.App. Div. 1, 2014) Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeal ruled that a lawsuit filed by a homeowner to stop a trustee’s sale should not have been dismissed, not where the homeowner made affirmative,non-speculative assertions that the trustee and beneficiary who noticed the trustee’s sale were not authorized to do so. The Court distinguished a previous decision of the Arizona Supreme Court, Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Bank, N.A., 230 Ariz. 584, 585, 277 P.3d 781, 782 (Ariz. 2012), which had held that a trustee and beneficiary did not have to produce an original promissory note into court in order to be able to go forward with a trustee’s sale, at least not when there was no allegation before the court that they did not have the right to proceed. The Court also acknowledged that Steinberger stated a cause of action for the negligent performance of an ‘undertaking’, when she alleged the payee lured her into defaulting on her loan with the promise of a potential loan modification and then dragging out the process to the point where she could no longer afford to reinstate the loan. The Court even reinstated Steinberger’s claim that the action of wrongfully noticing the trustee’s sale constituted negligence per se, in violation of a A.R.S. § 39–161, a recording statute, making it a crime to knowingly record a false document.