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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-322 (2026)

Notice of prepayment; effect of failure to pay

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The clerk of the supreme court, upon receipt of the index of record on an appeal, shall notify the appellant or the appellant's attorney that the record has been received and will be filed upon payment of the fee provided in section 12-321. If the fee is not paid within ten days after receiving notice, the appeal shall be deemed abandoned and the record returned to the court from which it came, and the judgment may be enforced as if no appeal had been taken.

B. The clerk, in like manner, shall notify the appellee or the appellee's attorney of the time of filing the index of record, and unless the fee provided in section 12-321 is paid within ten days after the filing, the appellee shall not be entitled to be heard.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: Drozda v. McComas, 887 P.2d 612 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Drozda v. McComas, 887 P.2d 612 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “” The rule states, in part: If the judgment finally obtained is equal to, or more favorable to the offeror than, the offer, the offeree must pay, as a sanction, those reasonable expert witness fees and double the taxable costs of the offeror, as defined in A.R.S. § 12-322,…”
Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 329 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. 2014). · cites it 2× “the offeree must pay, as a sanction, reasonable expert witness fees and double the taxable costs, as defined in A.R.S. § 12-322, incurred by the offeror after making the offer and prejudgment interest on un-liquidated claims to accrue from the date of the offer.”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Miller Park, L.L.C., 164 P.3d 667 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “We thus remand to the superior court for entry of an amended judgment awarding Miller Park its reasonable expert witness fees and double its taxable costs awarded to it under A.R.S. § 12-322. However, Miller Park is not entitled to an award of prejudgment interest as a sanction…”
Hunt Inv. Co. v. Eliot, 742 P.2d 858 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “The issues raised on appeal are: (1) Whether reimbursement of costs incurred by the plaintiff is limited to *359 “taxable costs,” as set forth in A.R.S. § 12-322, and (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by reducing the amount of attorney’s fees requested by…”
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Dir. of Ins., 422 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1966). · cites it 2× “§ 12-322 5. § 13-1719 10. § 12-323 NOTES [1] A.”
Watts v. Indus. Comm'n, 885 P.2d 1077 (Ariz. 1994). “We note that § 12-322 expressly provides for the abandonment of civil appeals upon the failure to pay the fee required by § 12-321(A) within 30 days of notice by the clerk.”
Sanchez-Ravuelta v. Yavapai, 569 P.3d 47 (Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “5 ¶15 Shortly after the notice of appeal was filed, the superior court entered an order vacating the Second Judgment and explaining that it had “inadvertently entered judgment pursuant to Rule 54(c) without realizing that an appeal-tolling motion for new trial had been filed.”
Siqueiros v. Valenzuela, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0370-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2023). · cites it 2× “¶4 On January 31, the superior court awarded Wife over $5,000 in reasonable attorney’s fees. The January 31 order lacked Rule 78 finality language.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-322(A): 2 cases
Sanchez-Ravuelta v. Yavapai, 569 P.3d 47 (Ariz. 2025). “5 ¶15 Shortly after the notice of appeal was filed, the superior court entered an order vacating the Second Judgment and explaining that it had “inadvertently entered judgment pursuant to Rule 54(c) without realizing that an appeal-tolling motion for new trial had been filed.”
Siqueiros v. Valenzuela, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0370-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2023). “¶4 On January 31, the superior court awarded Wife over $5,000 in reasonable attorney’s fees. The January 31 order lacked Rule 78 finality language.”
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.