Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 33
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1131 (2026)

Definition; wages; salary; compensation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

 

(Caution:  1998 Prop. 105 applies)

 

A. For the purposes of this section, "disposable earnings" means that remaining portion of a debtor's wages, salary or compensation for his personal services, including bonuses and commissions, or otherwise, and includes payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program or deferred compensation plan, after deducting from such earnings those amounts required by law to be withheld.

B. Except as provided in subsection C, the maximum part of the disposable earnings of a debtor for any workweek that is subject to process may not exceed ten percent of disposable earnings for that week or the amount by which disposable earnings for that week exceed sixty times the applicable minimum hourly wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable, whichever is less. The applicable minimum hourly wage is the minimum wage required by federal, state or local law, whichever is highest.

C. The exemptions provided in subsection B do not apply in the case of any order for the support of any person. In such case, one-half of the disposable earnings of a debtor for any pay period is exempt from process.

D. The exemptions provided in this section do not apply in the case of any order of any court of bankruptcy under chapter XIII of the federal bankruptcy act or any debt due for any state or federal tax.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes, 97 P.3d 876 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes, 97 P.3d 876 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 15× “” For several reasons, we interpret this statute as operating only to exempt from process one-half of a parent’s disposable earnings arising during a single pay period, and as not restricting the amounts that may be awarded as child support and/or spousal maintenance.”
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 23× “Sections 12-1570(2) and (7) contemplate the existence of both “exempt” and “nonexempt” monies, only the latter of which are subject to garnishment.”
Neeley v. Century Fin. Co. of Arizona, 606 F. Supp. 1453 (D. Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “The additional requirement that the writ be served on the judgment debtor at the time it is served on the garnishee or shortly thereafter imposes a small burden while increasing the benefits to all parties.”
Argonaut Ins. v. Lyons, 766 P.2d 619 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “, further provides for an ex parte wage assignment to fulfill child support obligations and states: An assignment ordered under this section does not apply to amounts made exempt under § 33-1131, subsection C or any other applicable exemption laws, and any order of assignment is…”
Hanley v. Indus. Comm'n, 21 P.3d 850 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 11× “section 33-1131. It asserted that section 33-1131 exempts fifty percent of the workers’ compensation benefits.”
Bagalini v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 660 P.2d 1253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “§ 12-2454 is void to the extent it may purport to reach any amounts exempted under A.R.S. § 33-1131. Therefore, if as appellant contends, Mr.”
Brooks v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 839 P.2d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “In 1979, the following language was added: “[a]n assignment ordered under this section does not apply to amounts made exempt under § 33-1131, subsection C or any other applicable exemption law, and any order of assignment is void to the extent it may purport to reach any such…”
Stokes v. Stokes, 694 P.2d 1204 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “An assignment ordered under this section does not apply to amounts made exempt under § 33-1131, subsection C or other applicable exemption law, and any order of assignment is void to the extent it may purport to reach any such exempt amount, but only to that extent.”
Hj Ventures v. candelario/carmax (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 9× “¶3 In December 2022, Proposition 209 took effect, amending Arizona’s wage garnishment statute, A.R.S. § 33-1131, to reduce the percentage of a debtor’s wages subject to garnishment.”
Merch. Transaction Sys. Inc. v. Nelcela Inc., et al. (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 4× “6 21 The Court finds that the applicable statute, A.R.S. § 33-1131, should be subject to 22 equitable tolling given the circumstances.”
Vanguard Eng'g v. Superior Court, 803 P.2d 126 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 33-1131(A) (disposable earnings include compensation for personal services).”
In Re: Erica Krystal Riggins, 544 P.3d 64 (Ariz. 2024). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 33-1131 (setting forth exemptions pertaining to “a debtor’s wages, salary or compensation”); see generally A.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1131(0) — 1 case
Bagalini v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 660 P.2d 1253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “§ 12-2454 is void to the extent it may purport to reach any amounts exempted under A.R.S. § 33-1131. Therefore, if as appellant contends, Mr.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1131(A) — 4 cases
Argonaut Ins. v. Lyons, 766 P.2d 619 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “, further provides for an ex parte wage assignment to fulfill child support obligations and states: An assignment ordered under this section does not apply to amounts made exempt under § 33-1131, subsection C or any other applicable exemption laws, and any order of assignment is…”
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “Sections 12-1570(2) and (7) contemplate the existence of both “exempt” and “nonexempt” monies, only the latter of which are subject to garnishment.”
Hanley v. Indus. Comm'n, 21 P.3d 850 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “section 33-1131. It asserted that section 33-1131 exempts fifty percent of the workers’ compensation benefits.”
Vanguard Eng'g v. Superior Court, 803 P.2d 126 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “See A.R.S. § 33-1131(A) (disposable earnings include compensation for personal services).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1131(B) — 4 cases
Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith, 907 P.2d 1384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “Sections 12-1570(2) and (7) contemplate the existence of both “exempt” and “nonexempt” monies, only the latter of which are subject to garnishment.”
Hj Ventures v. candelario/carmax (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “¶3 In December 2022, Proposition 209 took effect, amending Arizona’s wage garnishment statute, A.R.S. § 33-1131, to reduce the percentage of a debtor’s wages subject to garnishment.”
Merch. Transaction Sys. Inc. v. Nelcela Inc., et al. (D. Ariz. 2025). “6 21 The Court finds that the applicable statute, A.R.S. § 33-1131, should be subject to 22 equitable tolling given the circumstances.”
Protect Our Arizona v. hobbs/healthcare Rising (Ariz. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1131(C) — 4 cases
Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes, 97 P.3d 876 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “” For several reasons, we interpret this statute as operating only to exempt from process one-half of a parent’s disposable earnings arising during a single pay period, and as not restricting the amounts that may be awarded as child support and/or spousal maintenance.”
Hanley v. Indus. Comm'n, 21 P.3d 850 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “section 33-1131. It asserted that section 33-1131 exempts fifty percent of the workers’ compensation benefits.”
Brooks v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 839 P.2d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “In 1979, the following language was added: “[a]n assignment ordered under this section does not apply to amounts made exempt under § 33-1131, subsection C or any other applicable exemption law, and any order of assignment is void to the extent it may purport to reach any such…”
Jimenez v. state/ades (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
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.