Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1377 (2026)

Special detainer actions; service; trial postponement

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

33-1377. Special detainer actions; service; trial postponement

A. Special detainer actions shall be instituted for remedies prescribed in section 33-1368. Except as provided in this section, the procedure and appeal rights prescribed in title 12, chapter 8, article 4 apply to special detainer actions.

B. The summons shall be issued on the day the complaint is filed and shall command the person against whom the complaint is made to appear and answer the complaint at the time and place named which shall be not more than six nor less than three days from the date of the summons. The tenant is deemed to have received the summons three days after the summons is mailed if personal service is attempted and within one day of issuance of the summons a copy of the summons is conspicuously posted on the main entrance of the tenant's residence and on the same day the summons is sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the tenant's last known address. The summons in a special detainer action shall be served at least two days before the return day and the return day made on the day assigned for trial. Service of process in this manner shall be deemed the equivalent of having served the tenant in person for the purposes of awarding a money judgment for all rent, damages, costs and attorney fees due.

C. For good cause shown supported by an affidavit, the trial may be postponed for not more than three days in a justice court or five days in the superior court.

D. In addition to determining the right to actual possession, the court may assess damages, attorney fees and costs as prescribed by law.

E. If a complaint is filed alleging a material and irreparable breach pursuant to section 33-1368, subsection A, the summons shall be issued as provided in subsection B of this section, except that the trial date and return date shall be set no later than the third day following the filing of the complaint. If after the hearing the court finds by preponderance of the evidence that the material and irreparable breach did occur, the court shall order restitution in favor of the plaintiff not less than twelve nor more than twenty-four hours later.

F. If the defendant is found guilty, the court shall give judgment for the plaintiff for restitution of the premises, for late charges stated in the rental agreement, for costs and, at the plaintiff's option, for all rent found to be due and unpaid through the periodic rental period provided for in the rental agreement as described in section 33-1314, subsection C and shall grant a writ of restitution.

G. If the defendant is found not guilty, judgment shall be given for the defendant against the plaintiff for costs, and if it appears that the plaintiff has acquired possession of the premises since commencement of the action, a writ of restitution shall issue in favor of the defendant.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case: Keenen v. Biles, 17 P.3d 111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
Keenen v. Biles, 17 P.3d 111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 14× “A.R.S. §§ 33-1377, - 1368. Under section 33-1377 a landlord has available to him any of the remedies listed under section 33-1368.”
Arizona Real Est. Inv., Inc. v. Schrader, 244 P.3d 565 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “(forcible entry and detainer proceedings) with § 33-1377 (2007) (special detainer actions).”
Kadera v. Superior Court, 931 P.2d 1067 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “Thus, ARLTA section 33-1377, which allows a landlord to institute a special detainer action against a tenant for breach, is unavailable to Respondent in the instant case.”
Purcell v. Williamson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “The superior court clearly treated this suit as a special-detainer action under A.R.S. §§ 33-1377 and -1368(A)(2) (2020) (authorizing special-detainer action if tenant is committing "imminent or actual serious property damage").”
Colosi v. Nacim (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “As stated, the superior court found the handwritten note did not constitute a contract to sell the home, but found instead the parties had an oral lease, which Nacim breached by failing to pay rent.”
Mestro v. Pasionek (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 33-1377(D); Iverson v. Nava, 248 Ariz.”
Soughar v. Montoya (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 33-1368(B) (permitting the filing of a special detainer action under A.R.S. § 33-1377 for unpaid rent). Moreover, although the basis for the fourth eviction action was willful holdover, Soughar sought the very same unpaid rent that he now seeks in this eviction action.”
Poder in Action v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 33-1377(F). The EOs don’t prevent landlords from obtaining 21 such relief—they simply prevent landlords from enforcing a writ of restitution until the end 22 of October 2020.”
Garfield Sacred Heart Hous. LLC v. Santos (D. Ariz. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 33-1358(B) and requesting 22 relief under A.R.S. § 33-1377 . . . a Special Detainer Action”].”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1377(D) — 2 cases
Keenen v. Biles, 17 P.3d 111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “A.R.S. §§ 33-1377, - 1368. Under section 33-1377 a landlord has available to him any of the remedies listed under section 33-1368.”
Mestro v. Pasionek (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “See A.R.S. § 33-1377(D); Iverson v. Nava, 248 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1377(F) — 1 case
Poder in Action v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2020). “” A.R.S. § 33-1377(F). The EOs don’t prevent landlords from obtaining 21 such relief—they simply prevent landlords from enforcing a writ of restitution until the end 22 of October 2020.”
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.