33-1315. Prohibited provisions in rental agreements
A. A rental agreement shall not provide that the tenant does any of the following:
1. Agrees to waive or to forego rights or remedies under this chapter.
2. Agrees to pay the landlord's attorney fees, except an agreement in writing may provide that attorney fees may be awarded to the prevailing party in the event of court action and except that a prevailing party in a contested forcible detainer action is eligible to be awarded attorney fees pursuant to section 12-341.01 regardless of whether the rental agreement provides for such an award.
3. Agrees to the exculpation or limitation of any liability of the landlord arising under law or to indemnify the landlord for that liability or the costs connected therewith.
4. Agrees to waive or limit the tenant's right to summon or any other person's right to summon a peace officer or other emergency assistance in response to an emergency.
5. Agrees to payment of monetary penalties or otherwise penalizes the tenant for the tenant summoning or for any other person summoning a peace officer or other emergency assistance in response to an emergency.
B. A provision that is prohibited by subsection A of this section and that is included in a rental agreement is unenforceable. If a landlord deliberately uses a rental agreement containing provisions known by the landlord to be prohibited, the tenant may recover actual damages sustained by the tenant and not more than two months' periodic rent.
C. This section does not limit the landlord's right to evict a tenant pursuant to section 33-1368.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Bank of Ny v. Dodev, 433 P.3d 549 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Bank of Ny v. Dodev, 433 P.3d 549 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “1997) (revision of A.R.S. § 33-1315(A)(2) providing attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a forcible detainer action under the Landlord Tenant Act applied only to residential leases); Camelback Plaza Dev.”
Schaefer v. Murphey, 640 P.2d 857 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 2× “That portion of the trial court’s judgment regarding the security deposit is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The trial court’s award of damages to Tenant for Landlord’s failure to provide habitable premises is affirmed, and the finding of…”
Thomas v. Goudreault, 786 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The Act imposes duties upon a landlord independent of duties imposed by a lease.”
Rapp v. Olivo, 718 P.2d 489 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “The court noted in a footnote that the legislature had recently amended A.R.S. § 33-1315(A)(2) of the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, making a prevailing party in a forcible entry and detainer action entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
DVM Co. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd., 671 P.2d 907 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 2× “We note that the Arizona Legislature has recently amended A.R.S. § 33-1315(A)(2) making a prevailing party in a forcible entry and detainer action eligible to be awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
Rreef Mgmt. Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., 945 P.2d 386 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “section 33-1315 does not apply to commercial leases: It is part of the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, which applies only to the rental of dwelling units.”
DVM CO. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd., 671 P.2d 907 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 2× “NOTES [1] We note that the Arizona Legislature has recently amended A.R.S. § 33-1315(A)(2) making a prevailing party in a forcible entry and detainer action eligible to be awarded attorney's fees pursuant to A.”
Found. Dev. Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc., 780 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 5× “Therefore, this decision is only applicable to those matters brought prior to the effective date of the statutory amendment.”
Walters v. D'Annibale, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0520 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 14, 2022).
· cites it 3× “¶11 Landlord interprets the superior court’s ruling to mean that if a landlord accepts rent, thus waiving any breaches, he may not evict a tenant for a subsequent breach (occurring after the latest rental payment). We do not read the ruling that way.”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Galvez, 703 P.2d 1218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The supreme court made its decision applicable only to matters brought prior to the effective date of the statutory amendment of A.R.S. § 33-1315(A)(2): “... making a prevailing party in a forcible entry and detainer action eligible to be awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
Sutto, Jr. v. Bonham, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0278 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2019).
· cites it 2× “§ 12-1178(A), the superior court may award attorney fees to a party who successfully prosecutes a forcible detainer action.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1315(A): 3 cases
Schaefer v. Murphey, 640 P.2d 857 (Ariz. 1982).
“That portion of the trial court’s judgment regarding the security deposit is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The trial court’s award of damages to Tenant for Landlord’s failure to provide habitable premises is affirmed, and the finding of…”
Thomas v. Goudreault, 786 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“The Act imposes duties upon a landlord independent of duties imposed by a lease.”
Walters v. D'Annibale, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0520 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 14, 2022).
“¶11 Landlord interprets the superior court’s ruling to mean that if a landlord accepts rent, thus waiving any breaches, he may not evict a tenant for a subsequent breach (occurring after the latest rental payment). We do not read the ruling that way.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1315(A)(2): 12 cases
Bank of Ny v. Dodev, 433 P.3d 549 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“1997) (revision of A.R.S. § 33-1315(A)(2) providing attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a forcible detainer action under the Landlord Tenant Act applied only to residential leases); Camelback Plaza Dev.”
Rapp v. Olivo, 718 P.2d 489 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“The court noted in a footnote that the legislature had recently amended A.R.S. § 33-1315(A)(2) of the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, making a prevailing party in a forcible entry and detainer action entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
DVM Co. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd., 671 P.2d 907 (Ariz. 1983).
“We note that the Arizona Legislature has recently amended A.R.S. § 33-1315(A)(2) making a prevailing party in a forcible entry and detainer action eligible to be awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to A.”
DVM CO. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd., 671 P.2d 907 (Ariz. 1983).
“NOTES [1] We note that the Arizona Legislature has recently amended A.R.S. § 33-1315(A)(2) making a prevailing party in a forcible entry and detainer action eligible to be awarded attorney's fees pursuant to A.”
Rreef Mgmt. Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., 945 P.2d 386 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“section 33-1315 does not apply to commercial leases: It is part of the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, which applies only to the rental of dwelling units.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1315(B): 1 case
Walters v. D'Annibale, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0520 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 14, 2022).
“¶11 Landlord interprets the superior court’s ruling to mean that if a landlord accepts rent, thus waiving any breaches, he may not evict a tenant for a subsequent breach (occurring after the latest rental payment). We do not read the ruling that way.”
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.