A. No estate of inheritance, freehold, or for a term of more than one year, in lands or tenements, shall be conveyed unless the conveyance is by an instrument in writing, subscribed and delivered by the party disposing of the estate, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing.
B. Every deed or conveyance of real property must be signed by the grantor and must be duly acknowledged before some officer authorized to take acknowledgments as prescribed in title 41, chapter 2, article 1.
C. In every deed or conveyance of real property in which the grantee is subject to regulation pursuant to title 6, 10 or 29, or would be subject to regulation pursuant to title 6, 10 or 29 if doing business in this state, the grantee's name and address and the state in which the grantee is incorporated, organized, licensed, chartered or registered shall be set forth fully, together with the name of the country under which the grantee is chartered or formed. The validity of any deed shall not be affected by any failure to comply with the requirements set forth in this subsection.
D. For the purposes of this section, a deed or conveyance that contains any defect, omission or informality in the certificate of acknowledgment, or for which there is any failure to perform a duty or meet a requirement in the taking of the acknowledgment, and that has been recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the property is located shall be deemed to have been duly acknowledged on and after the date of its recording.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case:
Smith v. Neely, 380 P.2d 148 (Ariz. 1963).
Smith v. Neely, 380 P.2d 148 (Ariz. 1963).
· cites it 8× “The 1957 document was never properly acknowledged as required by A.R.S. § 33-401. [2] The defendant did not keep a copy of the 1957 document and the 1957 document was so dated as to make it appear that it had been executed in 1954.”
Larmer v. Est. of Larmer, 382 P.3d 1230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 12× “¶6 In response, James argued the deed was valid because Chauncey’s acknowledgment of the deed substantially complied with A.R.S. § 33-401 (B)’s acknowledgment requirement.”
Eardley v. Greenberg, 774 P.2d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 15× “” A.R.S. § 33-401(A) (1976) (emphasis added).”
Silving v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na, 800 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (D. Ariz. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Defendants reply that under A.R.S. § 33-401(C), “[t]he validity of any deed shall not be affected by any failure to comply with the requirements set forth in this subsection.”
Mac Enter., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Co., 645 P.2d 1245 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “In addition, A.R.S. § 33-401 requires that an estate in land for a term of years be conveyed “by an instrument in writing, subscribed and delivered by the party disposing” of it.”
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C., 121 P.3d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “¶ 6 We initially note that this is a fraudulent transfer action under the Act, not an action under Arizona’s conveyance statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-401 through 33-513. In Blalak , after a third party had purchased real property with Blalak’s funds, a judgment creditor of the third…”
Hardine v. Pioneer Nat'l Title Ins., 699 P.2d 1314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 33-401. In order to create a valid joint tenancy, the four unities must be present, the unity of time, unity of title, unity of interest and unity of possession.”
Eardley v. Greenberg, 792 P.2d 724 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 3× “, its conveyance, § 33-401(A), and the release of an encumbrance upon it by a *264 secured party, § 33-708.”
Desruisseau v. Isley, 553 P.2d 1242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “With certain 'exceptions, such as passage of title by descent and distribution, operation of law, eminent domain and adverse possession, title to real property may be transferred only by an instrument in writing as specified by A.R.S. § 33-401. We hold that estoppel is…”
Dominguez v. Dominguez, 567 P.3d 81 (Ariz. 2025).
· cites it 4× “¶31 In sum, a deed is a “recorded deed” if it has all the attributes of a valid deed that conveys real property, see § 33-401, and is recorded with the county recorder.”
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Mestas, 469 P.2d 855 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 3× “Also we find that the provisions of A.R.S. 33-401, subsec. A (1956) dealing with conveyances of land are not applicable to the facts here in inverse eminent domain.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-401(A) — 7 cases
Eardley v. Greenberg, 792 P.2d 724 (Ariz. 1990).
“, its conveyance, § 33-401(A), and the release of an encumbrance upon it by a *264 secured party, § 33-708.”
Eardley v. Greenberg, 774 P.2d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“” A.R.S. § 33-401(A) (1976) (emphasis added).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-401(B) — 6 cases
Larmer v. Est. of Larmer, 382 P.3d 1230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“¶6 In response, James argued the deed was valid because Chauncey’s acknowledgment of the deed substantially complied with A.R.S. § 33-401 (B)’s acknowledgment requirement.”
Dominguez v. Dominguez, 567 P.3d 81 (Ariz. 2025).
“¶31 In sum, a deed is a “recorded deed” if it has all the attributes of a valid deed that conveys real property, see § 33-401, and is recorded with the county recorder.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-401(C) — 1 case
Silving v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na, 800 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (D. Ariz. 2011).
“Defendants reply that under A.R.S. § 33-401(C), “[t]he validity of any deed shall not be affected by any failure to comply with the requirements set forth in this subsection.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-401(D) — 4 cases
Eardley v. Greenberg, 774 P.2d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“” A.R.S. § 33-401(A) (1976) (emphasis added).”
Eardley v. Greenberg, 792 P.2d 724 (Ariz. 1990).
“, its conveyance, § 33-401(A), and the release of an encumbrance upon it by a *264 secured party, § 33-708.”
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.