(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
The following property of a debtor used primarily for personal, family or household purposes is exempt from process:
1. All wearing apparel of not more than a fair market value of five hundred dollars.
2. All musical instruments provided for the debtor's individual or family use of not more than an aggregate fair market value of four hundred dollars.
3. Horses, milk cows and poultry of not more than an aggregate fair market value of one thousand dollars.
4. All engagement and wedding rings of not more than an aggregate fair market value of two thousand dollars.
5. The library of a debtor, including books, manuals, published materials and personal documents of not more than an aggregate fair market value of two hundred fifty dollars.
6. One watch of not more than a fair market value of two hundred fifty dollars.
7. One typewriter, one computer, one bicycle, one sewing machine, a family bible or a lot in any burial ground of not more than an aggregate fair market value of two thousand dollars.
8. Equity in one motor vehicle of not more than $15,000. If the debtor or debtor's dependent has a physical disability, the equity in the motor vehicle shall not exceed $25,000. The exemption prescribed in this paragraph shall be adjusted annually beginning on January 1, 2024 and thereafter on January 1 of each successive year by the increase in the cost of living. The increase in the cost of living shall be measured by the percentage increase as of August of the immediately preceding year over the level as of August of the previous year of the consumer price index (all urban consumers, United States city average for all items) or its successor index as published by the United States department of labor, bureau of labor statistics, or its successor agency, with the amount of the exemption rounded up to the nearest $100.
9. Professionally prescribed prostheses for the debtor or a dependent of the debtor, including a wheelchair or motorized mobility device.
10. All firearms of not more than an aggregate fair market value of two thousand dollars.
11. All domestic animals or household pets.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case:
In Re Irwin, 293 B.R. 28 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2003).
In Re Irwin, 293 B.R. 28 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2003).
“The Trustee notes, however, that the Debtors do have another vehicle they use for transportation and have claimed it as an exempt “motor vehicle” under A.R.S. § 33-1125(8), which applies to “one motor vehicle not in excess of a fair market value of five thousand dollars.”
Noggle v. Beneficial Fin. Co. (In Re Noggle), 30 B.R. 303 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1983).
“If it was generally understood that a rifle or any other weapon was covered by the term “household goods”, there would have been no necessity to provide a separate exemption for this class of property.”
In re Rody, 468 B.R. 384 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2012).
“Even assuming that A.R.S. § 33-1125 has extraterritorial effect, the exemption is limited to Arizona residents.”
In re Gregory, 487 B.R. 444 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013).
“00, as exempt under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 33-1125(8). 2012 WL 762828 , at *1.”
Warfield v. Nance (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 7× “28 § 33-1123; (6) clothing for $60 under A.R.S. § 33-1125(1); (7) a ring for $50 under A.”
In Re Sleeth, 300 B.R. 351 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Whether a motor home is a motor vehicle for purposes of Ariz.Rev. Stat § 33-1125(8)? Pursuant to 11 U.”
In re: Cynthia L. Messer (9th Cir. BAP 2012).
· cites it 3× “” 12 The chapter 7 trustee objected to debtor’s exemptions, 13 asserting that the claimed exemption in her vehicle was over the 14 $5,000 statutory limit set forth in ARS §33-1125(8) and her 15 exemption in the annuity under ARS §33-1125(A)(7) should be 16 denied because that…”
Cox v. Comm'r, 42 T.C.M. 1229 (Tax Ct. 1981).
“§§ 33-1123 , 33-1124 , 33-1125 , 33-1126 and 33-1131 (1976), for household furniture, furnishings, appliances, food, fuel, personal items and salary.”
Protect Our Arizona v. hobbs/healthcare Rising (Ariz. 2023).
“…property declared exempt by this article,” which includes certain household possessions (§ 33-1123), a motor vehicle (§ 33-1125(8)), funds in a single bank account (§ 33-1126(9)), and disposable earnings (§ 33-1131(B)), “is not exempt from process utilized to enforce a…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1125(1): 1 case
Warfield v. Nance (D. Ariz. 2024).
“28 § 33-1123; (6) clothing for $60 under A.R.S. § 33-1125(1); (7) a ring for $50 under A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1125(6): 1 case
Warfield v. Nance (D. Ariz. 2024).
“28 § 33-1123; (6) clothing for $60 under A.R.S. § 33-1125(1); (7) a ring for $50 under A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1125(8): 6 cases
In Re Irwin, 293 B.R. 28 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2003).
“The Trustee notes, however, that the Debtors do have another vehicle they use for transportation and have claimed it as an exempt “motor vehicle” under A.R.S. § 33-1125(8), which applies to “one motor vehicle not in excess of a fair market value of five thousand dollars.”
In re Gregory, 487 B.R. 444 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013).
“00, as exempt under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 33-1125(8). 2012 WL 762828 , at *1.”
In Re Sleeth, 300 B.R. 351 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2003).
“Whether a motor home is a motor vehicle for purposes of Ariz.Rev. Stat § 33-1125(8)? Pursuant to 11 U.”
Warfield v. Nance (D. Ariz. 2024).
“28 § 33-1123; (6) clothing for $60 under A.R.S. § 33-1125(1); (7) a ring for $50 under A.”
In re: Cynthia L. Messer (9th Cir. BAP 2012).
“” 12 The chapter 7 trustee objected to debtor’s exemptions, 13 asserting that the claimed exemption in her vehicle was over the 14 $5,000 statutory limit set forth in ARS §33-1125(8) and her 15 exemption in the annuity under ARS §33-1125(A)(7) should be 16 denied because that…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1125(A)(7): 1 case
In re: Cynthia L. Messer (9th Cir. BAP 2012).
“” 12 The chapter 7 trustee objected to debtor’s exemptions, 13 asserting that the claimed exemption in her vehicle was over the 14 $5,000 statutory limit set forth in ARS §33-1125(8) and her 15 exemption in the annuity under ARS §33-1125(A)(7) should be 16 denied because that…”
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.