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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1375 (2026)

Periodic tenancy; holdover remedies

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

A. The landlord or the tenant may terminate a week-to-week tenancy by a written notice given to the other at least ten days prior to the termination date specified in the notice.

B. The landlord or the tenant may terminate a month-to-month tenancy by a written notice given to the other at least thirty days prior to the periodic rental date specified in the notice.

C. If the tenant remains in possession without the landlord's consent after expiration of the term of the rental agreement or its termination, the landlord may bring an action for possession and if the tenant's holdover is willful and not in good faith the landlord, in addition, may recover an amount equal to not more than two months' periodic rent or twice the actual damages sustained by the landlord, whichever is greater. If the landlord consents in writing to the tenant's continued occupancy, section 33-1314, subsection D applies.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: Domeier v. Saunders (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Domeier v. Saunders (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “Failure to Receive Timely Notice ¶16 Saunders also claims Domeier failed to give her timely notice of the termination of the lease because she was a “month-to-month” tenant entitled to a thirty-day notice under A.R.S. § 33-1375(B). We disagree. ¶17 A tenant who remains in…”
Lux Prop. v. Hughes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “HUGHES Decision of the Court ¶5 In July 2019, Lux initiated a second eviction action in justice court against Hughes, this time based on Hughes’ failure to vacate the property following the thirty-day notice of non-renewal/termination of his month-to-month tenancy pursuant to…”
Harrington v. Rodriguez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 33-1375(B) (“The landlord or the tenant may terminate a month-to- month tenancy by a written notice given to the other at least thirty days prior.”
Mestro v. Pasionek (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “It is undisputed that the Mestros gave the Pasioneks 30 days’ written notice, see A.R.S. § 33-1375(B), which informed the Pasioneks that the month-to-month tenancy would terminate at the end of September 2021.”
Helmer v. Padilla (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 33-1375(B)–(C) (notice requirements for terminating month-to-month tenancy).”
Deatcher v. Drake (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “”) § 33-1375. Drake moved to dismiss, arguing that the notice was not delivered as required by A.”
Deatcher v. Drake (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “”) § 33-1375. Drake moved to dismiss, arguing that the notice was not delivered as required by A.”
Wharton v. Jr Prop. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 33-1375(B). ¶8 On August 19, 2021, JR provided Wharton with a Ten-Day Notice to Quit, citing unauthorized tenants in the property.”
Soughar v. Montoya (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “¶3 Relevant here, in February 2022, Soughar filed his fourth eviction action against Montoya based upon willful holdover under A.R.S. § 33-1375(C). Soughar alleged that (1) Montoya was on a month-to-month tenancy; (2) Soughar had terminated the lease following proper notice; and…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1375(B) — 5 cases
Domeier v. Saunders (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Failure to Receive Timely Notice ¶16 Saunders also claims Domeier failed to give her timely notice of the termination of the lease because she was a “month-to-month” tenant entitled to a thirty-day notice under A.R.S. § 33-1375(B). We disagree. ¶17 A tenant who remains in…”
Harrington v. Rodriguez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “See A.R.S. § 33-1375(B) (“The landlord or the tenant may terminate a month-to- month tenancy by a written notice given to the other at least thirty days prior.”
Mestro v. Pasionek (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “It is undisputed that the Mestros gave the Pasioneks 30 days’ written notice, see A.R.S. § 33-1375(B), which informed the Pasioneks that the month-to-month tenancy would terminate at the end of September 2021.”
Helmer v. Padilla (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “See A.R.S. § 33-1375(B)–(C) (notice requirements for terminating month-to-month tenancy).”
Wharton v. Jr Prop. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “See A.R.S. § 33-1375(B). ¶8 On August 19, 2021, JR provided Wharton with a Ten-Day Notice to Quit, citing unauthorized tenants in the property.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1375(C) — 2 cases
Domeier v. Saunders (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Failure to Receive Timely Notice ¶16 Saunders also claims Domeier failed to give her timely notice of the termination of the lease because she was a “month-to-month” tenant entitled to a thirty-day notice under A.R.S. § 33-1375(B). We disagree. ¶17 A tenant who remains in…”
Soughar v. Montoya (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “¶3 Relevant here, in February 2022, Soughar filed his fourth eviction action against Montoya based upon willful holdover under A.R.S. § 33-1375(C). Soughar alleged that (1) Montoya was on a month-to-month tenancy; (2) Soughar had terminated the lease following proper notice; and…”
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.