BT Capital, LLC v TD Service Co., a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in May of this year is good example of a decision which leaves as many questions unanswered as it answers because the appellate courts have carte blanche to gloss over inconvenient facts. The case involved two trustee’s sales of the same property on the same day by the same Trustee. TD was the Trustee for the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust, PCF, who was owed $32 million. The property was commercial property in Chandler. When the day came for the Trustee’s Sale, June 15, 2009, TD held a sale at 12 noon at which PCF was the only bidder and who won with a bid of $1 million. A representative of BT informed the auctioneer after the sale that it had been noticed for 2 pm, not 12 and so a second sale was held the same day at which PCF was the successful bidder at $1,000,001.00. TD had failed to follow the instructions of BT to bid up to $25 million, if required. After TD refused BT’s tender of the purchase price the next day, BT sued and obtained a preliminary injunction. By February, 2010, the Superior Court granted judgment in favor of TD and PCF. In June, 2010 the Superior Court clarified its ruling that its February ruling was also intended to dissolve the preliminary injunction. BT filed an appeal the next day but was unsuccessful in obtaining an injunction from the Court of Appeals. Then, in July, 2010, TD held another trustee’s sale, at which PCF was the only bidder. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the July 2010 mooted the entire case. The Supreme Court did not explain how, if the preliminary injunction was dissolved in June, 2010, a trustee’s sale could be held the following month. Even more frustrating is this statement from the Supreme Court: “If TD’s refusal to accept payment was improper (an issue we do not decide), BT might have brought an action seeking to compel TD to complete the sale consistent with its statutory obligations.” If they were not deciding that issue, that was probably a surprise to BT.