Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1571 (2026)

Issuance of writ

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The clerk of the court or justice of the peace shall issue writs of garnishment, returnable to their respective courts, upon the filing of the application required by section 12-1572 and the bond required by section 12-1573.

B. City and town magistrates may issue writs of garnishment, which are returnable to their respective courts, for nonpayment of any monies payable to the court including but not limited to bonds, fines, fees, sanctions, penalties, surcharges, assessments and restitution imposed in their courts on the filing of the application required by section 12-1572 and the bond required by section 12-1573. A political subdivision or court is considered a judgment creditor for purposes of garnishment.

C. The writ may issue to the judgment creditor as garnishee for property of the judgment debtor in possession of the judgment creditor or a third party.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case: Lamb v. Superior Court, Etc., 621 P.2d 906 (Ariz. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arnold v. Knettle, 460 P.2d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 12-1571 requires the clerk of the court to issue a writ of garnishment when the plaintiff sues for debt and makes an affidavit that the debt is just, due and unpaid.”
Lamb v. Superior Court, Etc., 621 P.2d 906 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 4× “*404 By A.R.S. § 12-1571(A)(2), an order is sufficient to support a garnishment, and by A.”
Jackson v. Phoenixflight Prods., Inc., 700 P.2d 1342 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “The garnishment statutes specifically dealing with service of the writ of garnishment, A.R.S. §§ 12-1571 and 12-1574, do not mention a garnishment lien upon a debt.”
Neeley v. Century Fin. Co. of Arizona, 606 F. Supp. 1453 (D. Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “This class action involves a challenge to the Arizona post-judgment garnishment procedures, A.R.S. § 12-1571 et seq., as being violative of Article 6, clause 2 (the Supremacy clause) and the 14th amendment (due process clause) to the.”
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “In 1985, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona found Arizona’s then-existing post-judgment garnishment statutes, former AR.S. §§ 12-1571 et seq., unconstitutional.”
ANDREW BROWN Co. v. Painters Warehouse, Inc., 531 P.2d 527 (Ariz. 1975). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1571, plaintiff, by its attorneys, swore out an affidavit that the debt due was unpaid, that the defendants did not have property in the state sufficient to satisfy the debt, and that the garnishment was not intended to injure either the defendants or the…”
Woodward v. Chirco Const. Co., Inc., 687 P.2d 1275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 12-1571(A)(l)(b). We hold that the term “debt” in A.”
Huggins v. Deinhard, 654 P.2d 32 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Appellant’s next argument is based on the fact that Arizona’s garnishment statutes (A.R.S. §§ 12-1571 et seq.) have been held to be unconstitutional insofar as they purport to allow prejudgment garnishment without affording the debtor an opportunity for a pregamishment hearing…”
Patrick v. Associated Dry. Corp.(goldwater's Div.), 509 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-1571 specifies the grounds for the issuance of a writ of garnishment.”
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Pomona Mach. Co., 486 P.2d 184 (Ariz. 1971). · cites it 2× “Appellee on appeal counters that even if jurisdiction existed it should not have been exercised as the prejudgment garnishment statute is unconstitutional.”
Webster v. Uslife Title Co., 598 P.2d 108 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “In connection with the filing of that action and pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-1571 and 12-2401, et. seq., Webster, on December 12, 1977, obtained a prejudgment writ of garnishment which was served on appellant USLIFE Title Company of Arizona (hereinafter “USLIFE Title”) attempting…”
State v. Allred, 425 P.2d 572 (Ariz. 1967). · cites it 2× “The State then moved to have judgment against it set aside on the ground that it was void.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1571(A) — 1 case
Hosogai v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 611 P.2d 951 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1571(A)(2) — 2 cases
Lamb v. Superior Court, Etc., 621 P.2d 906 (Ariz. 1980). “*404 By A.R.S. § 12-1571(A)(2), an order is sufficient to support a garnishment, and by A.”
Finberg v. Sullivan, 634 F.2d 50 (3rd Cir. 1980).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1571(A)(l)(b) — 1 case
Woodward v. Chirco Const. Co., Inc., 687 P.2d 1275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “” A.R.S. § 12-1571(A)(l)(b). We hold that the term “debt” in A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1571(C) — 1 case
Rappaport v. Fed. Sav. Bank (D. Ariz. 2021).
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.