Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01 (2026)

Additional definition of forcible detainer

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. In addition to other persons enumerated in this article, a person in any of the following cases who retains possession of any land, tenements or other real property after he receives written demand of possession may be removed through an action for forcible detainer filed with the clerk of the superior court in accordance with this article:

1. If the property has been sold through the foreclosure of a mortgage, deed of trust or contract for conveyance of real property pursuant to title 33, chapter 6, article 2.

2. If the property has been sold through a trustee's sale under a deed of trust pursuant to title 33, chapter 6.1.

3. If the property has been forfeited through a contract for conveyance of real property pursuant to title 33, chapter 6, article 3.

4. If the property has been sold by virtue of an execution and the title has been duly transferred.

5. If the property has been sold by the owner and the title has been duly transferred.

B. The remedies provided by this section do not affect the rights of persons in possession under a lease or other possessory right which is superior to the interest sold, forfeited or executed upon.

C. The remedies provided by this section are in addition to and do not preclude any other remedy granted by law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Curtis v. Morris, 925 P.2d 259 (Ariz. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Curtis v. Morris, 925 P.2d 259 (Ariz. 1996). · cites it 13× “We are asked to resolve a conflict between Division One and Division Two of the Court of Appeals over whether the expansion of the definition of forcible detainer in A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 to include transactions in which property is sold means that the merits of title may now be…”

Curtis v. Morris, 909 P.2d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 11× “A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 substantially expands the definition of forcible entry and detainer to include several categories of possessor [sic] not previously covered.”

Bank of Ny v. Dodev, 433 P.3d 549 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “When Dodev failed to do so, the Bank pursued forcible detainer (or “eviction”) actions pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1173.01. The March and August 2016 Actions ¶4 The Bank filed the first eviction action (the “March 2016” action) in superior court in March 2016, naming both Dodev and…”

Carrington Mortg. Servs. LLC v. Woods, 397 P.3d 1055 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “Applicable here, A.R.S. § 12-1173.01(A)(2) provides: [A] person .”

Grady v. Barth, 312 P.3d 117 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 12-1173.01, 1984 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”

Bank of New York Mellon v. De Meo, 254 P.3d 1138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Under A.R.S. § 12-1173.01(A)(2), a person who retains possession of property after receiving "written demand of possession” may be removed through an action for forcible detainer “[i]f the property has been sold through a trustee’s sale under a deed of trust.”

Mason v. Cansino, 990 P.2d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “In 1984, our legislature added § 12-1173.01, which states: A. In addition to other persons enumerated in this article, a person in any of the following cases who retains possession of any land, tenements or other real property after he received written demand of possession may…”

Arizona Real Est. Inv., Inc. v. Schrader, 244 P.3d 565 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “”) section 12-1173.01 (2003). ¶ 3 A process server tried to serve Schrader with the summons and complaint on October 7, 2009.”

Moreno v. Garcia, 821 P.2d 247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 substantially expands the definition of forcible entry and detainer to include several categories of possessor not previously covered.”

Tri City Nat'l Bank v. Barth, 346 P.3d 27 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “¶ 3 In November 2012, TCNB filed an action for FED pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 to remove the Gradys from the prop *91 erty.”

Secure Ventures v. Hon. gerlach/johnson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 18× “2 The superior court correctly noted that A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 was enacted by the legislature after Andreola was decided.”

Zayas v. Zayas (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 17× “The legislature expanded the scope of the remedy in A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 to include transactions where “the property has been sold by the owner and the title has been duly transferred.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01(0) — 1 case

Moreno v. Garcia, 821 P.2d 247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 substantially expands the definition of forcible entry and detainer to include several categories of possessor not previously covered.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01(A) — 3 cases

Wholesale v. Montoya (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).

Bmo Harris v. Thruston (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).

Secure Ventures v. Hon. gerlach/johnson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “2 The superior court correctly noted that A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 was enacted by the legislature after Andreola was decided.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01(A)(1) — 2 cases

Mason v. Cansino, 990 P.2d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “In 1984, our legislature added § 12-1173.01, which states: A. In addition to other persons enumerated in this article, a person in any of the following cases who retains possession of any land, tenements or other real property after he received written demand of possession may…”

McGrew v. Brunet (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01(A)(2) — 13 cases

Carrington Mortg. Servs. LLC v. Woods, 397 P.3d 1055 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Applicable here, A.R.S. § 12-1173.01(A)(2) provides: [A] person .”

Bank of New York Mellon v. De Meo, 254 P.3d 1138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “” Under A.R.S. § 12-1173.01(A)(2), a person who retains possession of property after receiving "written demand of possession” may be removed through an action for forcible detainer “[i]f the property has been sold through a trustee’s sale under a deed of trust.”

Grady v. Barth, 312 P.3d 117 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “A.R.S. § 12-1173.01, 1984 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”

Sutto, Jr. v. Bonham (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).

Bucks Fin. v. Overley (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01(A)(3) — 3 cases

Voliner v. Olson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).

Colosi v. Nacim (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).

Ely v. Ely (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01(A)(4) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01(A)(5) — 3 cases

Curtis v. Morris, 925 P.2d 259 (Ariz. 1996). “We are asked to resolve a conflict between Division One and Division Two of the Court of Appeals over whether the expansion of the definition of forcible detainer in A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 to include transactions in which property is sold means that the merits of title may now be…”

Curtis v. Morris, 909 P.2d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 substantially expands the definition of forcible entry and detainer to include several categories of possessor [sic] not previously covered.”

Zayas v. Zayas (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “The legislature expanded the scope of the remedy in A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 to include transactions where “the property has been sold by the owner and the title has been duly transferred.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01(B) — 2 cases

McGrew v. Brunet (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).

Wholesale v. Montoya (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01(C) — 1 case

Secure Ventures v. Hon. gerlach/johnson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “2 The superior court correctly noted that A.R.S. § 12-1173.01 was enacted by the legislature after Andreola was decided.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1173.01(a)(3) — 1 case

Ely v. Ely (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).

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.