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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1631 (2026)

Order for appearance of debtor; limitation

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

A. When a judgment has been entered and docketed, the judgment creditor, at any time may:

1. Have an order from the court requiring the judgment debtor to appear and answer concerning his property before the court or a referee, at a time and place specified in the order.

2. Have a subpoena issued compelling the judgment debtor to appear for deposition upon oral examination and answer concerning his property at a time and place specified in the subpoena.

B. No judgment debtor shall be required to attend out of the county in which he resides.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Lamb v. Superior Court, Etc., 621 P.2d 906 (Ariz. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lamb v. Superior Court, Etc., 621 P.2d 906 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 4× “§ 12-1571(A)(2), an order is sufficient to support a garnishment, and by A.R.S. § 12-1631(A), an order is sufficient to support a subpoena for a debtor's examination.”
Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. v. CBM of Arizona, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 168 (D. Ariz. 1986). · cites it 2× “This is a consolidation of two declaratory actions challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s Supplemental Proceedings statute, A.R.S. § 12-1631 et seq. BACKGROUND In April, 1985, certain aspects of Arizona’s post-judgment garnishment statute, A.”
Cristall v. Cristall, 242 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" ¶ 6 In February 2009, Barbara petitioned the trial court for supplemental proceedings pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1631, requesting an order which would require Robert to "appear and answer concerning his property" at a *1062 debtor's examination.”
Schueler v. Rayjas Enter., Inc., 847 F. Supp. 1147 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). “, 12 Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 12-1631, et seq (1986); N.”
Wong v. White Rock Phlebotomy LLC (D. Ariz. 2024). · cites it 6× “69 and A.R.S. § 12-1631 to authorize 21 Plaintiffs to compel and obtain discovery from .”
Wagner v. Adickman (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 5× “JC cited Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of 8 Civil Procedure and argued “[a]n examination of a judgment debtor is a type of discovery 9 authorized by Rule 69(a) and state law under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1631(A) — 2 cases
Lamb v. Superior Court, Etc., 621 P.2d 906 (Ariz. 1980). “§ 12-1571(A)(2), an order is sufficient to support a garnishment, and by A.R.S. § 12-1631(A), an order is sufficient to support a subpoena for a debtor's examination.”
Wong v. White Rock Phlebotomy LLC (D. Ariz. 2024). “69 and A.R.S. § 12-1631 to authorize 21 Plaintiffs to compel and obtain discovery from .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1631(A)(1) — 1 case
Wong v. White Rock Phlebotomy LLC (D. Ariz. 2024). “69 and A.R.S. § 12-1631 to authorize 21 Plaintiffs to compel and obtain discovery from .”
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.