A. Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent or decreasing services or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession after any of the following:
1. The tenant has complained to a governmental agency charged with responsibility for enforcement of a building or housing code of a violation applicable to the premises materially affecting health and safety.
2. The tenant has complained to the landlord of a violation under section 33-1324.
3. The tenant has organized or become a member of a tenants' union or similar organization.
4. The tenant has complained to a governmental agency charged with the responsibility for enforcement of the wage-price stabilization act.
B. If the landlord acts in violation of subsection A of this section, the tenant is entitled to the remedies provided in section 33-1367 and has a defense in action against him for possession. In an action by or against the tenant, evidence of a complaint within six months prior to the alleged act of retaliation creates a presumption that the landlord's conduct was in retaliation. The presumption does not arise if the tenant made the complaint after notice of termination of the rental agreement. "Presumption", in this subsection, means that the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact presumed unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence.
C. Notwithstanding subsections A and B of this section, a landlord may bring an action for possession if either of the following occurs:
1. The violation of the applicable building or housing code was caused primarily by lack of reasonable care by the tenant or other person in his household or upon the premises with his consent.
2. The tenant is in default in rent. The maintenance of the action does not release the landlord from liability under section 33-1361, subsection B.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case:
Thomas v. Goudreault, 786 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
Thomas v. Goudreault, 786 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 6× “RETALIATORY CONDUCT UNDER A.R.S. § 33-1381 A.R.S. § 33-1381 prohibits a landlord from increasing rent, decreasing services or bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession in retaliation for a complaint by a tenant in violation of A.”
Schaefer v. Murphey, 640 P.2d 857 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Nevertheless, Tenant maintains she was unlawfully ousted because Landlord en *299 gaged in “retaliatory conduct” as defined in § 33-1381. “A. Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent or decreasing services or by bringing or threatening…”
Scofield v. Berman & Sons, Inc., 469 N.E.2d 805 (Mass. 1984).
· cites it 2× “, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-1381 (1974) (increasing rent, decreasing services, or bringing or threatening to bring action for possession); Cal.”
Van Buren Apts. v. Adams, 701 P.2d 583 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Retaliatory conduct on the part of the landlord is prohibited by A.R.S. § 33-1381 which states: “A. Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent or decreasing services or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession after…”
Bollfrass v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 14× “The parties dispute whether other civil remedies are available to 10 Plaintiffs under § 33-1381. 11 At the motion to dismiss stage, this Court found that Plaintiffs stated a plausible 12 claim for relief under the statute in view of their allegations that they had been ousted…”
Wright v. Brady, 889 P.2d 105 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995).
“Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 33-1381; Nev.Rev.Stat.”
Stroud v. Pb Bell (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 10× “Conspiracy to Retaliate ¶8 Stroud argues the trial court misapplied the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act by denying her the protections of A.R.S. § 33-1381 merely because she was a holdover tenant when evicted.”
Bollfrass v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 10× “Count Three (Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1381) 25 Plaintiffs allege in Count Three that Defendants PHD, Bosshart, Fernandez and 26 Navarrette retaliated against them in violation of A.”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Galvez, 703 P.2d 1218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “With regard to appellee’s position that appellants' defenses do not arise out of the ARLTA, it should first be observed that the Act specifies the retaliatory conduct of the landlord which is prohibited in A.R.S. § 33-1381, which provides: “A. Except as provided in this section,…”
Purcell v. Williamson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “§ 33-1371 (2020), as well as their unlawful-retaliation counterclaim under A.R.S. § 33-1381(A)(3), both of which fall under the ARLTA.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1381(A) — 3 cases
Bollfrass v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2020).
“Count Three (Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1381) 25 Plaintiffs allege in Count Three that Defendants PHD, Bosshart, Fernandez and 26 Navarrette retaliated against them in violation of A.”
Stroud v. Pb Bell (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“Conspiracy to Retaliate ¶8 Stroud argues the trial court misapplied the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act by denying her the protections of A.R.S. § 33-1381 merely because she was a holdover tenant when evicted.”
Bollfrass v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2022).
“The parties dispute whether other civil remedies are available to 10 Plaintiffs under § 33-1381. 11 At the motion to dismiss stage, this Court found that Plaintiffs stated a plausible 12 claim for relief under the statute in view of their allegations that they had been ousted…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1381(A)(1) — 2 cases
Bollfrass v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2020).
“Count Three (Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1381) 25 Plaintiffs allege in Count Three that Defendants PHD, Bosshart, Fernandez and 26 Navarrette retaliated against them in violation of A.”
Bollfrass v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2022).
“The parties dispute whether other civil remedies are available to 10 Plaintiffs under § 33-1381. 11 At the motion to dismiss stage, this Court found that Plaintiffs stated a plausible 12 claim for relief under the statute in view of their allegations that they had been ousted…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1381(A)(3) — 2 cases
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Galvez, 703 P.2d 1218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“With regard to appellee’s position that appellants' defenses do not arise out of the ARLTA, it should first be observed that the Act specifies the retaliatory conduct of the landlord which is prohibited in A.R.S. § 33-1381, which provides: “A. Except as provided in this section,…”
Purcell v. Williamson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“§ 33-1371 (2020), as well as their unlawful-retaliation counterclaim under A.R.S. § 33-1381(A)(3), both of which fall under the ARLTA.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1381(B) — 1 case
Bollfrass v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2022).
“The parties dispute whether other civil remedies are available to 10 Plaintiffs under § 33-1381. 11 At the motion to dismiss stage, this Court found that Plaintiffs stated a plausible 12 claim for relief under the statute in view of their allegations that they had been ousted…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1381(C) — 1 case
Thomas v. Goudreault, 786 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“RETALIATORY CONDUCT UNDER A.R.S. § 33-1381 A.R.S. § 33-1381 prohibits a landlord from increasing rent, decreasing services or bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession in retaliation for a complaint by a tenant in violation of A.”
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.