Dominguez v. Dominguez

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Plaintiff's counsel argued that a forged deed is void ab initio and cannot convey title, asserting that no jurisdiction gives effect to such deeds.
2. The court questioned whether the plaintiff's position requires overruling prior Arizona precedent, specifically Sparks v. Douglas, which focuses on the four corners of a deed rather than extrinsic facts like forgery.
3. Justices explored the distinction between ARS § 12-524 and § 12-525, noting that § 12-525 explicitly excludes forged deeds from adverse possession claims while § 12-524 does not contain such an exception.
4. Defendant's counsel argued that adding a forgery exception to § 12-524 would impermissibly legislate by inserting a fifth element where the legislature included none, unlike in adjacent statutes § 12-523 and § 12-525.
5. The court discussed whether the policy against forgery in § 12-525 should be read into § 12-524 in pari materia to prevent inconsistent results where a forger could gain title by recording a deed without open possession.
6. Defendant's counsel contended that the equitable tolling argument was waived because it was not raised in the initial summary judgment briefing and lacked evidentiary support in the record.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT47M29S · Captions available