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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-524 (2026)

City lot claimed under recorded deed; five year limitation

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

An action to recover a lot located in a city or town from a person having a recorded deed therefor, who claims ownership and has paid the taxes thereon, shall be brought within five years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, provided that the person against whom the action is brought, by himself or his grantors, has claimed ownership thereof and has paid the taxes thereon for at least five consecutive years next preceding the commencement of such action.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Dominguez v. Dominguez, 567 P.3d 81 (Ariz. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dominguez v. Dominguez, 567 P.3d 81 (Ariz. 2025). · cites it 74× “1 The primary issue here concerns the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-524, which establishes a five-year statute of limitations to quiet title to real property against a party who claims ownership, holds a “recorded deed” for the property, and has paid its taxes for the preceding…”
Quality Plastics, Inc. v. Moore, 640 P.2d 169 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 11× “On appeal, the Moores argue that Quality’s predecessor in interest, Sexton, acquired no interest in the parcel and that Moores’ predecessor in interest, Kaiser, obtained good title by virtue of the tax sale and deed.”
Nicholas v. Giles, 426 P.2d 398 (Ariz. 1967). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 12-524 provides: “An action to recover a lot located in a city or town from a person having a recorded deed therefor, who claims ownership and has paid the taxes thereon, shall be brought within five years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, provided…”
Henderson v. Tejada, 549 P.2d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 8× “The trial court also found that Tejada had established adverse possession un *466 der A.R.S. § 12-524. That statute provides : “An action to recover a lot located in a city or town from a person having a recorded deed therefor, who claims ownership and has paid the taxes…”
Franco v. Mesa Pub. Schs. (D. Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “2004) (using A.R.S. § 12-524’s two-year 16 statute of limitations in a § 1983 claim).”
Trevizo v. Meacham (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “3d 81, 89 (2025) (holding that the limitations period established by A.R.S. § 12-524 begins to run upon recording of a deed as long as the deed is “facially valid”); see also Anadarko Land Corp.”
Kogan v. tibsherany/murray (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “Specifically, Tina argued Trasdira acquired the lots through adverse possession based on § 12-524’s five-year statute of limitations.”
Dominguez v. Dominguez, 547 P.3d 1079 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “A Lot in a City or Town Element ¶12 The Estate argues—for the first time on appeal—§ 12-524 does not apply because the Property is not in a city or town.”
Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. Yuma Cnty. Water Users Ass'n (S.D. Cal. 2021). “Toeppen, 141 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 2 Alternatively, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint should be dismissed (1) 27 because it is time-barred by A.R.S. § 12-524(3); (2) under the doctrine of forum non conveniens; (3) under 28 the doctrine of judicial…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-524(3) — 1 case
Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. Yuma Cnty. Water Users Ass'n (S.D. Cal. 2021). “Toeppen, 141 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 2 Alternatively, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint should be dismissed (1) 27 because it is time-barred by A.R.S. § 12-524(3); (2) under the doctrine of forum non conveniens; (3) under 28 the doctrine of judicial…”
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.