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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1591 (2026)

Taxing costs

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

A. When the garnishee is discharged on the garnishee's answer, the cost of the proceeding, including reasonable compensation to the garnishee, shall be taxed against the judgment creditor.

B. When there is no written objection to the answer of the garnishee and the garnishee is held on the garnishee's answer, the attorney fees that are allowed by section 12-1572, paragraph 3 and costs as provided in subsection A of this section shall be taxed against the judgment debtor.

C. Where the answer is objected to in writing the attorney fees and costs shall abide the issue.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1980–1996 · leading case: Spanier v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 623 P.2d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spanier v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 623 P.2d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 15× “USF&G’s first contention is that as a successful plaintiff in its garnishment action against Jenkins, A.R.S. § 12-1591 entitles it to an award of attorneys’ fees.”
Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. AGN Dev. Corp., 694 P.2d 1217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “19 for payments made both before and after notice of the assignment.”
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “But AR.S. § 12-1591(0) does not extend the right to reasonable compensation to a successful garnishment plaintiff.”
Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Butler & Booth Dev. Co., 711 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “utler & Booth entitled to setoffs and defenses resulting from Bernardino’s non-performance of the contract giving rise to the account receivable; (2) is Butler & Booth’s obligation to pay the material supplier a defense that accrued before Butler & Booth received notification of…”
Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Arizona Bank, 650 P.2d 435 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 9× “(emphasis added by DES) We note, however, that (1) the issue of whether the cost of answering the writ should be set off against the funds held by the garnishee was not squarely before the court and (2) the answer of the garnishee was controverted pursuant to paragraph C of…”
Falcon v. Beverly Hills Mortg. Corp., 802 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 12-1591. Costs are reasonable compensation to the garnishee including expenses and attorneys’ fees.”
All Am. Auto Salvage v. Camp's Auto, Wreckers, 679 A.2d 627 (N.J. 1996). “2d 435, 436 (1982) (holding that Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 12-1591 permitted garnishee to set off its costs for responding to a writ of garnishment); Aspen Indus.”
Bus. Fin. Serv. v. BUTLER & BOOTH DEV., 711 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “utler & Booth entitled to setoffs and defenses resulting from Bernardino's non-performance of the contract giving rise to the account receivable; (2) is Butler & Booth's obligation to pay the material supplier a defense that accrued before Butler & Booth received notification of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1591(0) — 2 cases
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “But AR.S. § 12-1591(0) does not extend the right to reasonable compensation to a successful garnishment plaintiff.”
Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. AGN Dev. Corp., 694 P.2d 1217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “19 for payments made both before and after notice of the assignment.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1591(B) — 1 case
Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Arizona Bank, 650 P.2d 435 (Ariz. 1982). “(emphasis added by DES) We note, however, that (1) the issue of whether the cost of answering the writ should be set off against the funds held by the garnishee was not squarely before the court and (2) the answer of the garnishee was controverted pursuant to paragraph C of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1591(C) — 4 cases
Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. AGN Dev. Corp., 694 P.2d 1217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “19 for payments made both before and after notice of the assignment.”
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “But AR.S. § 12-1591(0) does not extend the right to reasonable compensation to a successful garnishment plaintiff.”
Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Butler & Booth Dev. Co., 711 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “utler & Booth entitled to setoffs and defenses resulting from Bernardino’s non-performance of the contract giving rise to the account receivable; (2) is Butler & Booth’s obligation to pay the material supplier a defense that accrued before Butler & Booth received notification of…”
Bus. Fin. Serv. v. BUTLER & BOOTH DEV., 711 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “utler & Booth entitled to setoffs and defenses resulting from Bernardino's non-performance of the contract giving rise to the account receivable; (2) is Butler & Booth's obligation to pay the material supplier a defense that accrued before Butler & Booth received notification of…”
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.