A. A landlord shall not demand or receive security, however denominated, including prepaid rent in an amount or value of more than one and one-half month's rent. This subsection does not prohibit a tenant from voluntarily paying more than one and one-half month's rent in advance.
B. The purpose of all nonrefundable fees or deposits shall be stated in writing by the landlord. Any fee or deposit not designated as nonrefundable is refundable.
C. On move in, a landlord shall furnish the tenant with a signed copy of the lease, a move-in form for specifying any existing damages to the dwelling unit and written notification to the tenant that the tenant may be present at the move-out inspection. On request by the tenant, the landlord shall notify the tenant when the landlord's move-out inspection will occur. If the tenant is being evicted for a material and irreparable breach and the landlord has reasonable cause to fear violence or intimidation on the part of the tenant, the landlord has no obligation to conduct a joint move-out inspection with the tenant.
D. On termination of the tenancy, property or money held by the landlord as prepaid rent and security may be applied to the payment of all rent, and subject to a landlord's duty to mitigate, all charges as specified in the signed lease agreement, or as provided in this chapter, including the amount of damages which the landlord has suffered by reason of the tenant's noncompliance with section 33-1341. Within fourteen days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays or other legal holidays, after termination of the tenancy and delivery of possession and demand by the tenant the landlord shall provide the tenant an itemized list of all deductions together with the amount due and payable to the tenant, if any. Unless other arrangements are made in writing by the tenant, the landlord shall mail the itemized list and any amount due, by first class mail, to the tenant's last known place of residence. If the tenant does not dispute the deductions or the amount due and payable to the tenant within sixty days after the itemized list and amount due are mailed as prescribed by this subsection, the amount due to the tenant as set forth in the itemized list with any amount due is deemed valid and final and any further claims of the tenant are waived.
E. If the landlord fails to comply with subsection D of this section, the tenant may recover the property and money due the tenant together with damages in an amount equal to twice the amount wrongfully withheld.
F. This section does not preclude the landlord or tenant from recovering other damages to which the landlord or tenant may be entitled under this chapter.
G. During the term of tenancy the landlord may use refundable security deposits or other refundable deposits in accordance with any applicable provisions of the property management agreement. At the end of tenancy, all refundable deposits shall be refunded to the tenant pursuant to this section.
H. The holder of the landlord's interest in the premises at the time of the termination of the tenancy is bound by this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case:
Schaefer v. Murphey, 640 P.2d 857 (Ariz. 1982).
Schaefer v. Murphey, 640 P.2d 857 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 10× “$200 for failure of Landlord to return security deposit in violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1321 and 33-1367; b. $132.40 representing expenses incurred due to Landlord’s failure to provide habitable premises; c.”
Lisa v. Strom, 904 P.2d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 7× “”) ■ section 33-1321. Louis Hoffman (“Hoffman”), an associate in the law firm of Lisa & Lisa, was the attorney of record.”
Crum v. Maricopa Cnty., 950 P.2d 171 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “1995) (interpreting the “may recover” language of A.R.S. § 33-1321(C) as requiring an award of treble damages to a tenant whose security deposit was wrongfully withheld).”
Mead, Samuel & Co., Inc. v. Dyar, 622 P.2d 512 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “, which applies “to the rental of dwelling units”, § 33-1304, and contains many provisions of considerable specificity, including an article on “landlord obligations”, § 33-1321 through § 33-1325. A number of provisions throughout the act grant tenants the right to recover…”
M2 Real Solutions v. Perry (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “The superior court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment to M2 on its termination claim or in awarding it damages under § 33-1321(E).”
Wharton v. Jr Prop. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “¶26 Wharton also argues JR breached A.R.S. § 33-1321 by wrongfully withholding the $3,400 security deposit, alleging that JR inflated the repair damage invoice to intentionally retain the deposit.”
Stefanovich v. Anderson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “ANDERSON Decision of the Court counterclaims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and violations of A.R.S. §§ 33-1321 and 33-1343. The jury found in favor of (1) the Stefanoviches and awarded them $3,632; (2) the Andersons on their…”
Smith v. Stick (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 33-1321(D) (requiring a landlord to provide an itemized list of deductions within fourteen days “after termination of the tenancy and delivery of possession and demand by the tenant”).”
Palestina v. McMillin (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 33-1321(E). Landlord timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.”
Mays v. Mwm Vicsdale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 33-1321(E); see also Crum v. Maricopa County, 190 Ariz.”
Petramala v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “§ 3604 (“FHA”), for 12 refusal to rent to him on account of his disability; (6) A.R.S. § 33-1321, for failing to return 13 his security deposit; (7) state law breach of contract and detrimental reliance, for failing to 14 timely provide him with a nonrenewal notice; and (8) 42 U.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1321(C) — 3 cases
Lisa v. Strom, 904 P.2d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“”) ■ section 33-1321. Louis Hoffman (“Hoffman”), an associate in the law firm of Lisa & Lisa, was the attorney of record.”
Crum v. Maricopa Cnty., 950 P.2d 171 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“1995) (interpreting the “may recover” language of A.R.S. § 33-1321(C) as requiring an award of treble damages to a tenant whose security deposit was wrongfully withheld).”
Schaefer v. Murphey, 640 P.2d 857 (Ariz. 1982).
“$200 for failure of Landlord to return security deposit in violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1321 and 33-1367; b. $132.40 representing expenses incurred due to Landlord’s failure to provide habitable premises; c.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1321(D) — 5 cases
Lisa v. Strom, 904 P.2d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“”) ■ section 33-1321. Louis Hoffman (“Hoffman”), an associate in the law firm of Lisa & Lisa, was the attorney of record.”
Schaefer v. Murphey, 640 P.2d 857 (Ariz. 1982).
“$200 for failure of Landlord to return security deposit in violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1321 and 33-1367; b. $132.40 representing expenses incurred due to Landlord’s failure to provide habitable premises; c.”
Smith v. Stick (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“See A.R.S. § 33-1321(D) (requiring a landlord to provide an itemized list of deductions within fourteen days “after termination of the tenancy and delivery of possession and demand by the tenant”).”
Wharton v. Jr Prop. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“¶26 Wharton also argues JR breached A.R.S. § 33-1321 by wrongfully withholding the $3,400 security deposit, alleging that JR inflated the repair damage invoice to intentionally retain the deposit.”
M2 Real Solutions v. Perry (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“The superior court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment to M2 on its termination claim or in awarding it damages under § 33-1321(E).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1321(E) — 3 cases
M2 Real Solutions v. Perry (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“The superior court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment to M2 on its termination claim or in awarding it damages under § 33-1321(E).”
Palestina v. McMillin (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“See A.R.S. § 33-1321(E). Landlord timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.”
Mays v. Mwm Vicsdale (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“” A.R.S. § 33-1321(E); see also Crum v. Maricopa County, 190 Ariz.”
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.