In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Deliver" means any of the following:
(a) To hand deliver.
(b) To mail by regular first class mail to the address which the sender determines through reasonable good faith efforts to be best calculated to reach the recipient in a timely manner.
(c) To serve on a party pursuant to the rules of civil procedure applicable to a summons.
2. "Exempt monies or property" means monies or property that, pursuant to a state or federal law, is not subject to judicial process, including execution, attachment, garnishment, replevin, sale or any final process issued from any court or any other judicial remedy provided for the collection of debts.
3. "Good faith" means honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned.
4. "Judgment creditor" means a person or entity that has a money judgment or an order for support of a person that is due and unpaid or an order pursuant to chapter 14 of this title allowing him to garnish monies, personal property or shares of stock before final judgment on the underlying action.
5. "Judgment debtor" means a person or entity against which a money judgment has been awarded or against which an order for support of a person is due and unpaid or against which an order pursuant to chapter 14 of this title has been entered.
6. "Monies" includes cash, credit and accounts, but does not include earnings as defined in section 12-1598, paragraph 4.
7. "Nonexempt monies or property" means monies or property which are not restricted by law from judicial process.
8. "Personal property" means all property and interests to which a security interest may be perfected pursuant to title 47, chapter 9, except accounts.
9. "Receipt" means actually received.
Notes of Decisions
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 11× “Second, although Smith argues that “the distinction between ‘earnings’ and ‘money’ is simply irrelevant” to the garnishment of money under AR.S. §§ 12-1570 et seq., this argument is simply wrong.”
Kellin v. Hon. lynch/americanwest, 449 P.3d 719 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Under the statutes governing proceedings to garnish monies or property, A.R.S. §§ 12-1570 to -1597, A.R.S. § 12-1580(E) provides the exclusive avenue for a party to recover attorney’s fees and costs against a judgment debtor.”
yauck/alt v. West Town (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 6× “¶32 The requirements for the provisional remedy of garnishment are set forth in A.R.S. §§ 12-1570 to -1597 and -2401 to -2412.”
Fund Manager v. Dep't of Pub. Saf. Local Ret. Bd., 757 P.2d 128 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Black’s Law Dictionary defines “good faith” as “encompass[ing] among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage.”
Jacob Benson v. Casa De Capri Ent (Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 2× “2019); see also A.R.S. §§ 12-1570 to -1597. “Since garnishment is a creature of statute, garnishment proceedings are necessarily governed by the terms of those statutes .”
Pearson v. Cannon (D. Ariz. 2020).
“Arizona Revised Statute § 12-1570 et seq. addresses 26 garnishment procedure in Arizona.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1570(2) — 1 case
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Second, although Smith argues that “the distinction between ‘earnings’ and ‘money’ is simply irrelevant” to the garnishment of money under AR.S. §§ 12-1570 et seq., this argument is simply wrong.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1570(4) — 1 case
yauck/alt v. West Town (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“¶32 The requirements for the provisional remedy of garnishment are set forth in A.R.S. §§ 12-1570 to -1597 and -2401 to -2412.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1570(5) — 3 cases
yauck/alt v. West Town (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“¶32 The requirements for the provisional remedy of garnishment are set forth in A.R.S. §§ 12-1570 to -1597 and -2401 to -2412.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1570(6) — 1 case
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Second, although Smith argues that “the distinction between ‘earnings’ and ‘money’ is simply irrelevant” to the garnishment of money under AR.S. §§ 12-1570 et seq., this argument is simply wrong.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1570(7) — 1 case
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Second, although Smith argues that “the distinction between ‘earnings’ and ‘money’ is simply irrelevant” to the garnishment of money under AR.S. §§ 12-1570 et seq., this argument is simply wrong.”
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.