Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-882 (2026)

Duty of department of revenue regarding escheats; complaint and parties

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. When the director of the department of revenue has reason to believe that property or estate has escheated to the state, he shall file a complaint in behalf of the state in the superior court of the county where such property or some part thereof is situated, setting forth:

1. A description of the property or estate.

2. The name of the person last lawfully seized or possessed thereof.

3. The names of tenants or persons in actual possession, if any, and the names of persons claiming the property or estate, if any are known to claim it.

4. The facts and circumstances in consequence of which such property or estate is claimed to have escheated.

5. A prayer for a writ of possession for the property or estate in behalf of the state.

B. The tenants or persons in actual possession of the property or estate, and the persons claiming it, or any right, title or interest therein, shall be named parties defendant in the complaint.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1990–1992 · leading case: Est. of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 794 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Est. of Walton v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 794 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 12-882. Both procedural vehicles involve affirmative action by the state.”

State v. Brown, 840 P.2d 280 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. §§ 12-882(A) and 12-943. From the other portions of § 22-201, it is clear that the legislature knew how to and did enact different provisions for specific types of cases when it wanted to.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-882(A) — 1 case

State v. Brown, 840 P.2d 280 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “, A.R.S. §§ 12-882(A) and 12-943. From the other portions of § 22-201, it is clear that the legislature knew how to and did enact different provisions for specific types of cases when it wanted to.”

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.