A. If a change of venue is ordered, the court shall transfer the action to the most convenient adjoining county, unless the parties agree to some other county in which case the court shall transfer the action to the agreed upon county.
B. The clerk shall promptly transmit the papers and transcript of the proceedings in the action to the clerk of the court to which the venue is changed. Except as provided in subsection E of this section, the party applying for the change of venue shall pay a transmittal fee established pursuant to section 12-284 within twenty days after the order directing the change. If payment is not timely made, the application for change of venue and the order for change of venue shall be deemed abandoned. If the change is abandoned, the action shall proceed as if the order for change of venue had not been made.
C. On payment by the party applying for a change of venue of the fee required on the filing of a complaint, the clerk of the court to which the action is transferred shall docket the action in its order. The action shall be tried or otherwise disposed of as if it had originated in that court.
D. Except as provided in subsection E of this section, failure to pay the fee as required in subsection C of this section within thirty days from the date the new court receives the file shall be deemed an abandonment. The clerk of the court to which the action was transferred shall promptly transmit all papers to the court in which the action originated, and the action shall be disposed of as if no change of venue had been granted.
E. If a change of venue is ordered pursuant to section 12-404, the plaintiff shall pay the transmittal fee established pursuant to section 12-284 within twenty days after the order directing the change and, within thirty days from the date the new court receives the file, the plaintiff shall pay to the clerk of the court to which the action is transferred the fee required on the filing of a complaint as provided in subsection C of this section. If the plaintiff fails to timely pay either the transmittal fee or the filing fee in the county to which the action is transferred, the court shall dismiss the case without prejudice.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case:
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 25× “…our conclusion. The express direction in § 12-406(A) that changes of venue under § 12-406 be made “as provided in § 12-407” makes clear that § 12-407(A) applies to § 12-406. But different reasons lead us to conclude that, contrary to Yarbrough’s contention, § 12-407(A)…”
Lemons v. Superior Court of Gila Cnty., 687 P.2d 1257 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 26× “A.R.S. § 12-407(B) and (C). The plaintiff is required to pay those fees if the action was originally filed in the wrong county.”
Gila Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, 697 P.2d 681 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 18× “The trial judge in his order suggested that counsel “pay special attention to A.R.S. § 12-407 as amended in 1982.” A signed written judgment dismissing the State was filed pursuant to Rule 54(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.”
Simon v. State, 633 So. 2d 407 (Miss. 1993).
“1993); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-407 (Supp. 1992); Mo.”
Massengill v. Superior Court, 416 P.2d 1009 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 2× “" "§ 12-407. A. When a change of venue is ordered, the court shall transfer the action to the most convenient adjoining county, unless the parties agree to some other county in which case the action shall be transferred to the county agreed upon.”
Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 711 P.2d 1207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“If either party to a civil action pending in the superior court, after answer has been filed, files an affidavit in the action alleging any of the grounds specified in subsection B and gives five days notice to the opposite party, the venue may be changed as provided in §…”
Sharper Image Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 957 P.2d 1369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Although Sharper Image did not have possession of the catalogs while they were en route to Connecticut residents, its ultimate decision to target deliveries to those residents falls within the ambit of the statute’s progressive definition of “use.”
Sulger v. Superior Court, 337 P.2d 285 (Ariz. 1959).
· cites it 2× “This section provides that after an answer has been filed in a civil action that if either party thereto files an affidavit in the action alleging any of the grounds specified in subsection B thereof and gives five days notice to the opposite party the venue may be changed as…”
Brazelton v. Tapia, 506 P.2d 272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 5× “§ 12-401, as amended, and the proceedings thereunder as outlined in A.R.S. § 12-407, as amended. The petitioners herein filed a complaint in Pima County Superior Court alleging defendant’s negligence which resulted in an automobile collision.”
Gila Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, 697 P.2d 695 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 10× “The minute entry expressly cautioned counsel to pay special attention to A.R.S. § 12-407 as amended in 1982,” which sets forth the procedures to transfer an action following an order changing venue.”
Yarbrough v. Roberts Enter., Dewitt, Avator Holdings (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 24× “…our conclusion. The express direction in § 12- 406(A) that changes of venue under § 12-406 be made “as provided in § 12-407” makes clear that § 12-407(A) applies to § 12-406. But different reasons lead us to conclude that, contrary to Yarbrough’s contention, § 12-407(A)…”
Grigg v. Superior Court, 669 P.2d 1347 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Subsection E of A.R.S. § 12-407 is of fairly recent vintage, having been added to the statute by Chapter 152, Sec.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-407(5) — 1 case
Sharper Image Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 957 P.2d 1369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“Although Sharper Image did not have possession of the catalogs while they were en route to Connecticut residents, its ultimate decision to target deliveries to those residents falls within the ambit of the statute’s progressive definition of “use.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-407(A) — 2 cases
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 147 P.3d 755 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“…our conclusion. The express direction in § 12-406(A) that changes of venue under § 12-406 be made “as provided in § 12-407” makes clear that § 12-407(A) applies to § 12-406. But different reasons lead us to conclude that, contrary to Yarbrough’s contention, § 12-407(A)…”
Yarbrough v. Roberts Enter., Dewitt, Avator Holdings (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“…our conclusion. The express direction in § 12- 406(A) that changes of venue under § 12-406 be made “as provided in § 12-407” makes clear that § 12-407(A) applies to § 12-406. But different reasons lead us to conclude that, contrary to Yarbrough’s contention, § 12-407(A)…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-407(B) — 2 cases
Lemons v. Superior Court of Gila Cnty., 687 P.2d 1257 (Ariz. 1984).
“A.R.S. § 12-407(B) and (C). The plaintiff is required to pay those fees if the action was originally filed in the wrong county.”
Gila Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, 697 P.2d 695 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“The minute entry expressly cautioned counsel to pay special attention to A.R.S. § 12-407 as amended in 1982,” which sets forth the procedures to transfer an action following an order changing venue.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-407(E) — 5 cases
Lemons v. Superior Court of Gila Cnty., 687 P.2d 1257 (Ariz. 1984).
“A.R.S. § 12-407(B) and (C). The plaintiff is required to pay those fees if the action was originally filed in the wrong county.”
Gila Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, 697 P.2d 681 (Ariz. 1985).
“The trial judge in his order suggested that counsel “pay special attention to A.R.S. § 12-407 as amended in 1982.” A signed written judgment dismissing the State was filed pursuant to Rule 54(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.”
Gila Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, 697 P.2d 695 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“The minute entry expressly cautioned counsel to pay special attention to A.R.S. § 12-407 as amended in 1982,” which sets forth the procedures to transfer an action following an order changing venue.”
Grigg v. Superior Court, 669 P.2d 1347 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“Subsection E of A.R.S. § 12-407 is of fairly recent vintage, having been added to the statute by Chapter 152, Sec.”
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.