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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-411 (2026)

Invalidity of unrecorded instrument as to bona fide purchaser; acknowledgment required for proper recording; recording of instruments acknowledged in another state; exception

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

A. No instrument affecting real property gives notice of its contents to subsequent purchasers or encumbrance holders for valuable consideration without notice, unless recorded as provided by law in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the property is located.

B. An instrument shall not be deemed lawfully recorded unless it has been previously acknowledged in the manner prescribed in this chapter or title 41, chapter 2, article 1 except in the case of master mortgages as provided in section 33-415.

C. For the purposes of this section, an instrument that affects real property containing 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 lawfully recorded on and after the date of its recording.

D. An instrument affecting real property in this state executed and acknowledged in accordance with the laws of any other state shall be valid and entitled to record as if executed and acknowledged in accordance with the laws of this state.

E. Letters patent from the United States or any grant from the government, executed and authenticated pursuant to law, may be recorded without further acknowledgment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1963–2023 · leading case: Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, 258 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, 258 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “REEL also argues Continental’s and Premier’s liens "are extinguished” because the lis pendens were not "acknowledged as required by A.R.S § 33-411(B).” However, REEL cites to no authority, nor have we found any, that makes the acknowledgment requirements of §33-411(B) applicable…”
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc., 336 P.3d 1274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “Deed of Trust: Validity, Notice, BFP ¶ 7 As noted, the trial court found the first deed of trust invalid because it erroneously described the property and therefore failed to provide notice to the Manieoms, making them bona fide purchasers without notice who took the property…”
Phipps v. CW Leasing, Inc., 923 P.2d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 8× “section 33-411 provides: A. No instrument affecting real property gives notice of its contents to subsequent purchasers .”
Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, 283 P.3d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Acknowledgment of lis pendens ¶ 28 When a Laborer files a complaint to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, it must also record a lis pendens to provide notice of the lawsuit.”
Rodney v. Arizona Bank, 836 P.2d 434 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “Rodney claimed that because he had recorded the document assigning him a beneficial interest in the deed of trust pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-411 (the Arizona real property recording statute), and Security Pacific had failed to record its assignment, he is entitled to the note…”
Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting Co., Inc., 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “” See AR.S. § 33-411(A) (2007). Also, A.R.S. § 12-1191 itself distinguishes between the filing of a lis pen-dens and the related “action affecting title to real property.”
Valley Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Avco Develop. Co., 480 P.2d 671 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 5× “§ 33-509 and A.R.S. § 33-411 cannot be harmonized is well taken, but we do not believe that it was intended that they should be.”
Blalak v. Mid Valley Transp., Inc., 858 P.2d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Notwithstanding § 33-411, subsection C, every deed or conveyance of *542 real property, or an interest in real property, located in this state which is executed after June 22, 1976 in which the grantee is described as a trustee or acts as a trustee shall disclose the names and…”
Dunlap Investors Ltd. v. Hogan, 650 P.2d 432 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 33-411. (emphasis added) Because of the vagueness of the description of the easement in the Marco-Hogan grant, subsequent purchasers of the Marco parcel could not, even by searching back to the original grantor, have discovered the easement and were therefore “without…”
In Re Bisbee, 754 P.2d 1135 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 2× “2d 236 (1941), for the proposition that an instrument is constructive notice of the rights claimed thereunder if it is of a character which the recording statutes permit to be recorded and if it sufficiently apprises third parties of the rights claimed by it.”
Preston v. Denkins, 382 P.2d 686 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 33-411, 33-412. Mabel Preston was called to testify as a witness by appellees.”
Chantler v. Wood, 430 P.2d 713 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “Recording a deed gives constructive notice to persons who might otherwise have acquired the position of bona fide purchasers, A.R.S. §§ 33-411, subsec. A, 33-412 and 33-416, County of Pinal v.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-411(0) — 1 case
Kester v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (D. Ariz. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-411(A) — 12 cases
Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, 283 P.3d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “Acknowledgment of lis pendens ¶ 28 When a Laborer files a complaint to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, it must also record a lis pendens to provide notice of the lawsuit.”
Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting Co., Inc., 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “” See AR.S. § 33-411(A) (2007). Also, A.R.S. § 12-1191 itself distinguishes between the filing of a lis pen-dens and the related “action affecting title to real property.”
Blalak v. Mid Valley Transp., Inc., 858 P.2d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “Notwithstanding § 33-411, subsection C, every deed or conveyance of *542 real property, or an interest in real property, located in this state which is executed after June 22, 1976 in which the grantee is described as a trustee or acts as a trustee shall disclose the names and…”
Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 943 P.2d 855 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Rodney v. Arizona Bank, 836 P.2d 434 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Rodney claimed that because he had recorded the document assigning him a beneficial interest in the deed of trust pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-411 (the Arizona real property recording statute), and Security Pacific had failed to record its assignment, he is entitled to the note…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-411(B) — 6 cases
Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, 258 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “REEL also argues Continental’s and Premier’s liens "are extinguished” because the lis pendens were not "acknowledged as required by A.R.S § 33-411(B).” However, REEL cites to no authority, nor have we found any, that makes the acknowledgment requirements of §33-411(B) applicable…”
Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting Co., Inc., 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “” See AR.S. § 33-411(A) (2007). Also, A.R.S. § 12-1191 itself distinguishes between the filing of a lis pen-dens and the related “action affecting title to real property.”
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc., 336 P.3d 1274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Deed of Trust: Validity, Notice, BFP ¶ 7 As noted, the trial court found the first deed of trust invalid because it erroneously described the property and therefore failed to provide notice to the Manieoms, making them bona fide purchasers without notice who took the property…”
Tanner v. woloszyn/mcdaniels (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Kester v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (D. Ariz. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-411(C) — 5 cases
Phipps v. CW Leasing, Inc., 923 P.2d 863 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “section 33-411 provides: A. No instrument affecting real property gives notice of its contents to subsequent purchasers .”
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc., 336 P.3d 1274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Deed of Trust: Validity, Notice, BFP ¶ 7 As noted, the trial court found the first deed of trust invalid because it erroneously described the property and therefore failed to provide notice to the Manieoms, making them bona fide purchasers without notice who took the property…”
Kester v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (D. Ariz. 2016).
Tanner v. woloszyn/mcdaniels (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
David Kester v. Citimortgage, Inc., 709 F. App'x 869 (9th Cir. 2017).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-411(c) — 1 case
Fleming v. Fripps (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
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.