A. A person who is entitled to a homestead exemption as prescribed by section 33-1101 holds that exemption by operation of law and no written claim or recording is required. If a person has more than one property interest to which a homestead exemption may reasonably apply, a creditor may require the person to designate which property, if any, is protected by the homestead exemption. The creditor shall demand the designation by sending a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, to each address of the person which may reasonably be protected by the homestead exemption. The person shall designate the property by recording a homestead exemption in the office of the county recorder where the property is located or by sending the creditor a certified letter, return receipt requested, within thirty days of receiving the creditor's demand letter. If the person receives the creditor's letter and fails to respond as provided by this subsection, the person may only assert the homestead exemption by recording a claim in the office of the county recorder where the property is located.
B. If the person is married, the homestead may be selected from the community property, the joint property or the separate property of the person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case:
Matcha v. Winn, 638 P.2d 1361 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
Matcha v. Winn, 638 P.2d 1361 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 13× “In their motion for summary judgment, Matcha alleges that the above quoted document failed to comply with the requirements for a declaration of homestead as set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1102 which provides: § 33-1102.”
In Re: Steven R. Drummond, Mary A. Drummond, 543 P.3d 1022 (Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 4× “In that case, the court was asked to determine whether the party seeking an exemption, the Winns, complied with A.R.S. § 33-1102, which required, among other things, that an exemption claim be filed with the county recorder.”
Rogone v. Correia, 335 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 33-1102(A); Ferguson v. Roberts, 64 Ariz.”
Ageton v. Cervenka (In Re Ageton), 14 B.R. 833 (9th Cir. BAP 1981).
· cites it 2× “The trial court, believing that it must first determine what homestead exemption the debtors or each of them are entitled to under state law, examined Arizona law and found that, under a 1971 amendment to A.R.S. § 33-1102(B), both spouses must join in a homestead declaration…”
Grand Real Est., Inc. v. Sirignano, 676 P.2d 642 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “On April 16, 1975, Sirignano filed a homestead exemption on the subject property pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1102. Subsequently, on April 12, 1976, Sirignano filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy with the United States District Court for Arizona.”
Evans v. Young, 661 P.2d 1148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “” See A.R.S. § 33-1102. The “homestead” is exempt from “attachment, execution and forced sale.”
State v. Smith, 628 P.2d 65 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “From a review of the Arizona statutes governing homestead exemptions, 5 it is abundantly clear that the exemption may be voluntarily waived.”
Morrisey v. Ferguson, 753 P.2d 1192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “1981), Division One of this court held that “a declaration of homestead which completely omits any of the statutory requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 33-1102, is fatally defective and confers no exemption rights upon the declarants.”
In re Rody, 468 B.R. 384 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2012).
“at 346 ; A.R.S. § 33-1102(A). The Jarski court also stated that § 522(b)(3)(A) (formerly § 522(b)(2)(A)) “determines whose law governs the exemptions, but not whether the property claimed exempt must exist in that same state.”
Grand Real Est., Inc. v. Sirignano, 676 P.2d 642 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “On April 16, 1975, Sirignano filed a homestead exemption on the subject property pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1102. Subsequently, on April 12,1976, Sirignano filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy with the United States District Court for Arizona.”
Calcagno v. Ainbinder (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 33-1102(A). The homestead exemption statutes are interpreted liberally to advance their objective of protecting families against a forced sale of their home from certain creditors.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1102(A) — 4 cases
Rogone v. Correia, 335 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“A.R.S. § 33-1102(A); Ferguson v. Roberts, 64 Ariz.”
In re Rody, 468 B.R. 384 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2012).
“at 346 ; A.R.S. § 33-1102(A). The Jarski court also stated that § 522(b)(3)(A) (formerly § 522(b)(2)(A)) “determines whose law governs the exemptions, but not whether the property claimed exempt must exist in that same state.”
Calcagno v. Ainbinder (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“A.R.S. § 33-1102(A). The homestead exemption statutes are interpreted liberally to advance their objective of protecting families against a forced sale of their home from certain creditors.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1102(B) — 1 case
Ageton v. Cervenka (In Re Ageton), 14 B.R. 833 (9th Cir. BAP 1981).
“The trial court, believing that it must first determine what homestead exemption the debtors or each of them are entitled to under state law, examined Arizona law and found that, under a 1971 amendment to A.R.S. § 33-1102(B), both spouses must join in a homestead declaration…”
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.