Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-544

Bond to convey realty; partnership account; account between merchants; judgment or instrument given or made without the state; four year limitation

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

There shall be commenced and prosecuted within four years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions:

1. For the penalty or for damages on the penal clause of a bond to convey real property.

2. By one partner against his copartner for a settlement of the partnership account, or upon mutual and current accounts concerning the trade of merchandise between merchant and merchant, their factors or agents, and the cause of action shall be considered as having accrued upon a cessation of the dealings in which they were interested together.

3. Upon a judgment or decree of a court rendered without the state, or upon an instrument in writing executed without the state. This paragraph does not apply to a judgment for support, as defined in section 25-500, and to associated costs and attorney fees.

4. An action arising under the provisions of title 47, chapter 2, for breach of any contract of sale, which action shall be governed by section 47-2725, notwithstanding any other provision of this section or of section 12-543 or 12-548.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Monroe v. Az Acreage
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Monroe v. Az Acreage (2019) arizctapp · cites it 14× “¶5 Appellants moved to dismiss each case pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6), arguing that the four-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-544(3) applied and had expired and that Appellees lacked standing because they did not obtain the requisite…”
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. Friedman (2012) azd · cites it 26× “Mainly based upon that definition, and with no analysis, the Day court “h[e]ld that the limitation period set forth in A.R.S. § 12-544[ (3) ], does not begin to run against an action on a foreign judgment until its final determination on appeal or until the time for appeal has…”
LA CANADA HILLS LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Kite (2007) arizctapp · cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 12-544(2). In the alternative, La Canada contends that even if § 12-544(2) does not apply, and the accrual of the claim arises from a breach of contract, the cause of action did not accrue until 2005, when La Canada suffered injury from Kite’s failure to make payments.”
Eschenhagen v. Zika (1985) arizctapp · cites it 8× “It should also be noted that Arizona has a four-year statute of limitations for enforcing judgments rendered in other states, found in A.R.S. § 12-544(3). Clearly if appellee had brought an action to enforce her judgment instead of proceeding under the Uniform Act, she would…”
Grynberg v. Shaffer (2007) arizctapp · cites it 6× “¶ 7 Both Appellant and Appellee agree that the four-year statute of limitations provided by A.R.S. § 12-544(3) (2003) applies to the filing of foreign judgments under the UEFJA.”
Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Evans (1981) arizctapp · cites it 6× “That Plaintiff defended Defendants FRIDENA and PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS HOSPITAL in the underlying action under a timely reservation of rights; that a justiciable controversy arose between Plaintiff and Defendants herein when Judgment was entered in the underlying action on July…”
Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Phifer (1994) arizctapp · cites it 8× “§ 12-1551, the five-year statute of limitations governing actions on domestic judgments, applied rather than A.R.S. § 12-544(3), the four-year statute of limitations governing the enforcement of foreign judgments.”
Brand v. Elledge (1966) ariz · cites it 5× “2d at 360 Considering first A.R.S. § 12-544, the statute of limitations quoted in part in Younis v.”
McDaniel v. Banes (2020) arizctapp · cites it 6× “Banes argued A.R.S. § 12-544(3) barred enforcement of the 2019 amended judgment because the amended judgment “relates back” to the 2010 judgment and, given that relation back, he argued McDaniel’s claims were time barred.”
Academy Life Insurance v. Odiorne (1990) arizctapp · cites it 6× “Academy Life argues that the four-year statute of limitations in A.R.S. § 12-544(3) (1984) applies. That statute provides in relevant part that a lawsuit based on a written instrument executed outside Arizona must be “commenced and prosecuted” within four years after the cause…”
Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer (1966) ariz · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-544 allows four years to bring an action for an accounting between partners which is a similar fiduciary situation.”
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. Friedman (2013) azd · cites it 5× “Significantly, however, this court also found that re-registration to be untimely under A.R.S. § 12-544(3) 10 because “Fidelity’s [First] Arizona [Registered] [J]udgment became enforceable On December 3, 2002[,] .”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-544(2) — 3 cases
LA CANADA HILLS LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Kite (2007) arizctapp “A.R.S. § 12-544(2). In the alternative, La Canada contends that even if § 12-544(2) does not apply, and the accrual of the claim arises from a breach of contract, the cause of action did not accrue until 2005, when La Canada suffered injury from Kite’s failure to make payments.”
Estate of Kirschenbaum v. Kirschenbaum (1989) arizctapp
La Canada Hills Limited Partnership v. Florence Kite (2007) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-544(3) — 18 cases
Monroe v. Az Acreage (2019) arizctapp “¶5 Appellants moved to dismiss each case pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6), arguing that the four-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-544(3) applied and had expired and that Appellees lacked standing because they did not obtain the requisite…”
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. Friedman (2012) azd “Mainly based upon that definition, and with no analysis, the Day court “h[e]ld that the limitation period set forth in A.R.S. § 12-544[ (3) ], does not begin to run against an action on a foreign judgment until its final determination on appeal or until the time for appeal has…”
Eschenhagen v. Zika (1985) arizctapp “It should also be noted that Arizona has a four-year statute of limitations for enforcing judgments rendered in other states, found in A.R.S. § 12-544(3). Clearly if appellee had brought an action to enforce her judgment instead of proceeding under the Uniform Act, she would…”
Grynberg v. Shaffer (2007) arizctapp “¶ 7 Both Appellant and Appellee agree that the four-year statute of limitations provided by A.R.S. § 12-544(3) (2003) applies to the filing of foreign judgments under the UEFJA.”
Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Phifer (1994) arizctapp “§ 12-1551, the five-year statute of limitations governing actions on domestic judgments, applied rather than A.R.S. § 12-544(3), the four-year statute of limitations governing the enforcement of foreign judgments.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-544(4) — 1 case
Flori Corp. v. Fitzgerald (1990) arizctapp
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.