Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3805 (2026)

Priority of claims

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. If the applicable assets of the estate are insufficient to pay all claims in full, the personal representative shall make payment in the following order:

1. Costs and expenses of administration.

2. Reasonable funeral expenses.

3. Debts and taxes with preference under federal law.

4. Reasonable and necessary medical and hospital expenses of the last illness of the decedent, including compensation of persons attending him.

5. Debts and taxes with preference under the laws of this state.

6. All other claims.

B. No preference shall be given in the payment of any claim over any other claim of the same class and a claim due and payable shall not be entitled to a preference over claims not due.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1979–2015 · leading case: Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. v. Allen, 173 P.3d 448 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. v. Allen, 173 P.3d 448 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 13× “It argues, however, that the sale of encumbered estate property is subject to court supervision, and the proceeds of the *288 sale must be distributed pursuant to the priorities specified in A.R.S. § 14-3805 (2005). It is unclear whether AHCCCS is claiming that American Savings…”

In Re Est. of Fogleman, 3 P.3d 1172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 9× “See A.R.S. § 14-3805. We conclude, however, that the trial court misinterpreted the priority of claims statute as including estate taxes, and therefore erred.”

Ivancovich v. Meier, 595 P.2d 24 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 2× “But since the Legislature, by A.R.S. § 14-3805, has plainly made “[rjeasonable funeral expenses” a charge *353 against the testamentary estate, see Now-land v.”

Matter of Est. of Patterson, 805 P.2d 401 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “The death of the spouse ordered to pay support does not terminate the obligation, which may then be pursued as a creditor's claim against the estate, having priority equal to claims provided for in A.R.S. § 14-3805(A)(6). A.R.S. § 25-327(C).”

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. Fegen, 3 P.3d 1172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 9× “See A.R.S. § 14-3805. We conclude, however, that the trial court misinterpreted the priority of claims statute as including estate taxes, and therefore erred.”

Shaw v. Quaintance, 805 P.2d 401 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “The death of the spouse ordered to pay support does not terminate the obligation, which may then be pursued as a creditor’s claim against the estate, having priority equal to claims provided for in A.R.S. § 14-3805(A)(6). A.R.S. § 25-327(C).”

Wade v. Mhp 3 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, Wade is not an aggrieved party, and his claims against Contempo fail.5 ¶14 As the prevailing party, Contempo is entitled to its costs on appeal upon compliance with ARCAP 21.”

Hunter Ranch Inc. v. Hunter (10th Cir. 1998). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3805 . Application of the restriction to a sale to pay administrative expenses would be contrary to this legislative pronouncement of the public policy favoring payment of such expenses.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3805(A) — 3 cases

In Re Est. of Fogleman, 3 P.3d 1172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “See A.R.S. § 14-3805. We conclude, however, that the trial court misinterpreted the priority of claims statute as including estate taxes, and therefore erred.”

Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. v. Allen, 173 P.3d 448 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “It argues, however, that the sale of encumbered estate property is subject to court supervision, and the proceeds of the *288 sale must be distributed pursuant to the priorities specified in A.R.S. § 14-3805 (2005). It is unclear whether AHCCCS is claiming that American Savings…”

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. Fegen, 3 P.3d 1172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “See A.R.S. § 14-3805. We conclude, however, that the trial court misinterpreted the priority of claims statute as including estate taxes, and therefore erred.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3805(A)(6) — 2 cases

Matter of Est. of Patterson, 805 P.2d 401 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “The death of the spouse ordered to pay support does not terminate the obligation, which may then be pursued as a creditor's claim against the estate, having priority equal to claims provided for in A.R.S. § 14-3805(A)(6). A.R.S. § 25-327(C).”

Shaw v. Quaintance, 805 P.2d 401 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “The death of the spouse ordered to pay support does not terminate the obligation, which may then be pursued as a creditor’s claim against the estate, having priority equal to claims provided for in A.R.S. § 14-3805(A)(6). A.R.S. § 25-327(C).”

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.