A. Only an instrument that, on presentation to a county recorder for recordation, fails to meet any of the following conditions may be rejected for recordation at the time of presentation for recordation:
1. Each instrument shall have a caption briefly stating the nature of the instrument, such as warranty deed, release of mortgage and like captions. The county recorder shall have no obligation to index any instrument under any subject index category maintained by the county recorder unless that category is included in the caption to the instrument.
2. Each instrument shall be an original and shall be sufficiently legible for the recorder to make certified copies from the photographic or micrographic record.
3. Each instrument shall have original signatures except when otherwise provided by law.
4. Each instrument dated and executed on or after January 1, 1991, shall be not larger than eight and one-half inches in width and not longer than fourteen inches and shall have a print size not smaller than ten-point type.
B. Each instrument dated and executed on or after January 1, 1991, shall have at least a one-half inch margin across the top, bottom and the left and right sides from the top to the bottom. Any markings, entries or text that are within the one-half inch margin shall be deemed not to impart the notice otherwise imparted by recordation unless such markings, entries or text appear in the reproduction produced under the direction and control of the county recorder. Failure to meet the one-half inch margin requirement of this subsection may affect notice imparted by the document but shall not constitute grounds for rejection for recordation pursuant to subsection A of this section.
C. The first page shall have a top margin of at least two inches, which shall be reserved for recording information. The left three and one-half inches of the top margin of the first page or sheet may be used by the public to show the name of the person requesting recording and the name and address to which the document is to be returned following recording. If the first page of the instrument does not comply with the top margin requirements, a separate sheet that meets the requirements and that reflects the title of the document as required by subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section shall be attached to the front of the document by the party requesting recording.
D. Any instrument presented to a county recorder for recordation that modifies in any way the provisions of a previously recorded document must state the date of recordation and the docket and page of the document being modified.
E. Any instrument accepted for recordation is not subject to a later claim of invalidity for failure to comply with the requirements of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Watson Constr. Co. v. Amfac Mortg. Corp., 606 P.2d 421 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Watson next argues that the deed of trust was defective because it did not contain a caption as required by A.R.S. § 11-480 as then effective. At the times pertinent here, A.”
Vig v. Nix Proj. II P'ship, 212 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “First, an affidavit of disclosure must meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 11-480 (Supp. 2008), which defines the form of instruments that are to be presented to a county recorder for recordation.”
VERMA v. Stuhr, 221 P.3d 23 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Once that is done, the buyer’s five-day period to rescind commences.”
Phipps v. CW Leasing, Inc., 923 P.2d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “” He argues that the recorder’s acceptance of the document for recordation cured any defect in his failing to have it acknowledged.”
Purcell v. Superior Court, 835 P.2d 498 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “section 11-480(B) (1990). 3 She states that her office has always interpreted section 33-420(B) as requiring that this procedure be followed to remove an invalid lien from the system.”
Trevizo v. Meacham (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 17× “¶26 Appellees further contend that once the 2006 deed was recorded, A.R.S. § 11-480’s “strict and arduous process to determine that a document is suitable for recording” resulted in a conclusive determination of the deed’s validity.”
Jackson v. Phoenixflight Prods., Inc., 700 P.2d 1348 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 11-480(A) provides: A. Any instrument presented to a county recorder for recordation shall meet the following conditions: 1.”
Steelman v. US Bank (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 11-480(A)(2) (2012). ¶26 Steelman contends, however, that First American inserted material misstatements into the Quitclaim Deed by eliminating the identifying header and footer and adding exemption language under A.”
Steelman v. US Bank (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 11-480(A)(2) (2012). ¶26 Steelman contends, however, that First American inserted material misstatements into the Quitclaim Deed by eliminating the identifying header and footer and adding exemption language under A.”
Vales v. Kings Hill Condo. Ass'n, 125 P.3d 381 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “In Watson, we rejected the argument that a deed of trust was defective because it lacked a caption as required by A.R.S. § 11-480 (Supp.2005). 124 Ariz. at 576, 606 P.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-480(A) — 1 case
Jackson v. Phoenixflight Prods., Inc., 700 P.2d 1348 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“A.R.S. § 11-480(A) provides: A. Any instrument presented to a county recorder for recordation shall meet the following conditions: 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-480(A)(2) — 2 cases
Steelman v. US Bank (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“” A.R.S. § 11-480(A)(2) (2012). ¶26 Steelman contends, however, that First American inserted material misstatements into the Quitclaim Deed by eliminating the identifying header and footer and adding exemption language under A.”
Steelman v. US Bank (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“” A.R.S. § 11-480(A)(2) (2012). ¶26 Steelman contends, however, that First American inserted material misstatements into the Quitclaim Deed by eliminating the identifying header and footer and adding exemption language under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-480(A)(3) — 1 case
Trevizo v. Meacham (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“¶26 Appellees further contend that once the 2006 deed was recorded, A.R.S. § 11-480’s “strict and arduous process to determine that a document is suitable for recording” resulted in a conclusive determination of the deed’s validity.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-480(A)(4) — 1 case
Trevizo v. Meacham (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“¶26 Appellees further contend that once the 2006 deed was recorded, A.R.S. § 11-480’s “strict and arduous process to determine that a document is suitable for recording” resulted in a conclusive determination of the deed’s validity.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-480(B) — 1 case
Purcell v. Superior Court, 835 P.2d 498 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“section 11-480(B) (1990). 3 She states that her office has always interpreted section 33-420(B) as requiring that this procedure be followed to remove an invalid lien from the system.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-480(E) — 2 cases
Phipps v. CW Leasing, Inc., 923 P.2d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“” He argues that the recorder’s acceptance of the document for recordation cured any defect in his failing to have it acknowledged.”
Trevizo v. Meacham (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“¶26 Appellees further contend that once the 2006 deed was recorded, A.R.S. § 11-480’s “strict and arduous process to determine that a document is suitable for recording” resulted in a conclusive determination of the deed’s validity.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.