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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-412 (2026)

Invalidity of unrecorded instruments as to bona fide purchaser or creditor

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

A. All bargains, sales and other conveyances whatever of lands, tenements and hereditaments, whether made for passing an estate of freehold or inheritance or an estate for a term of years, and deeds of settlement upon marriage, whether of land, money or other personal property, and deeds of trust and mortgages of whatever kind, shall be void as to creditors and subsequent purchasers for valuable consideration without notice, unless they are acknowledged and recorded in the office of the county recorder as required by law.

B. Unrecorded instruments, as between the parties and their heirs, and as to all subsequent purchasers with notice thereof, or without valuable consideration, shall be valid and binding.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case: Blalak v. Mid Valley Transp., Inc., 858 P.2d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blalak v. Mid Valley Transp., Inc., 858 P.2d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 32× “§ 33-412(A) [1] was not intended to affect equitable interest in land, and was only intended to require that legal interests in land be recorded. However, the supplemental *541 opinion of the court held "only that a resulting trust, in order to be enforceable against a creditor,…”
First Am. Title Ins. v. Action Acquisitions, LLC, 187 P.3d 1107 (Ariz. 2008). · cites it 4× “AR.S. § 33-412(A) (2007). Conversely, unrecorded instruments are valid “as to all subsequent purchasers with notice thereof, or without valuable consideration.”
Rowe v. Schultz, 642 P.2d 881 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 13× “1 Luhrs did not involve a statutory provision such as A.R.S. § 33-412. Indeed, that opinion makes no reference to any recording or judgment lien statute.”
Julia Vasquez v. Saxon Mortg. Inc, 266 P.3d 1053 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 33-412(B). Thus, while the failure to record an assignment of a deed of trust might leave an assignee unprotected against claims by some purchasers or creditors, it does not affect a deed’s validity as to the obligor.”
Neal v. Hunt, 541 P.2d 559 (Ariz. 1975). · cites it 8× “*311 Percolating waters, which are not subject to appropriation, are included within hereditaments as found in A.R.S. § 33-412. The trial court held that Hunt did not have actual knowledge of the 1957 agreement between defendant and Hollenbeck nor was there sufficient evidence…”
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C., 121 P.3d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “See § 33-412. However, under § 44-1003(0), that transfer was not “made for present value” because the exchange between GWH and M & S was not “intended by them to be contemporaneous and [was not] in fact substantially contemporaneous.”
Valley Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Avco Develop. Co., 480 P.2d 671 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 5× “The parties agree that the resolution of the central issue in this case turns on whether the assignment of the right to unaccrued rents on a lease of real property is within the scope of A.R.S. § 33-412, which states: “§ 33-412.”
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc., 336 P.3d 1274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the recorded deed provided constructive notice of the lien and thereby denied the Manicoms the status of bona fide purchasers without notice pursuant to § 33-412(A). See § 33-818. ¶ 15 In reaching the opposite conclusion, the trial court determined the Manicoms had…”
3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Est. Serv., 229 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 33-412(B)(2007), provides that an unrecorded instrument “as between the parties and their heirs, and as to all subsequent purchasers with notice thereof, or without valuable consideration, shall be valid and binding.”
Keck v. Brookfield, 409 P.2d 583 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 33-412 provides: “A. All bargains, sales and other conveyances whatever of lands, tenements and hereditaments, whether made for passing an estate of freehold or inheritance or an estate for a term of years, and deeds of settlement upon marriage, whether of land, money…”
Valley Nat'l Bank v. Hay, 475 P.2d 9 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 6× “Records and Recording Laws § 49 (1943), Arizona appears to have confined the operation of A.R.S. § 33-412 to legal interests in land.”
Tucson Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sundell, 472 P.2d 6 (Ariz. 1970). · cites it 4× “However, A.R.S. § 33-412, subsec. B provides that such unrecorded instruments are, valid and binding as to all subsequent purchasers with notice thereof.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-412(A) — 13 cases
Blalak v. Mid Valley Transp., Inc., 858 P.2d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 33-412(A) [1] was not intended to affect equitable interest in land, and was only intended to require that legal interests in land be recorded. However, the supplemental *541 opinion of the court held "only that a resulting trust, in order to be enforceable against a creditor,…”
First Am. Title Ins. v. Action Acquisitions, LLC, 187 P.3d 1107 (Ariz. 2008). “AR.S. § 33-412(A) (2007). Conversely, unrecorded instruments are valid “as to all subsequent purchasers with notice thereof, or without valuable consideration.”
Rowe v. Schultz, 642 P.2d 881 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “1 Luhrs did not involve a statutory provision such as A.R.S. § 33-412. Indeed, that opinion makes no reference to any recording or judgment lien statute.”
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc., 336 P.3d 1274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Accordingly, the recorded deed provided constructive notice of the lien and thereby denied the Manicoms the status of bona fide purchasers without notice pursuant to § 33-412(A). See § 33-818. ¶ 15 In reaching the opposite conclusion, the trial court determined the Manicoms had…”
Neal v. Hunt, 541 P.2d 559 (Ariz. 1975). “*311 Percolating waters, which are not subject to appropriation, are included within hereditaments as found in A.R.S. § 33-412. The trial court held that Hunt did not have actual knowledge of the 1957 agreement between defendant and Hollenbeck nor was there sufficient evidence…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-412(B) — 13 cases
First Am. Title Ins. v. Action Acquisitions, LLC, 187 P.3d 1107 (Ariz. 2008). “AR.S. § 33-412(A) (2007). Conversely, unrecorded instruments are valid “as to all subsequent purchasers with notice thereof, or without valuable consideration.”
Julia Vasquez v. Saxon Mortg. Inc, 266 P.3d 1053 (Ariz. 2011). “” A.R.S. § 33-412(B). Thus, while the failure to record an assignment of a deed of trust might leave an assignee unprotected against claims by some purchasers or creditors, it does not affect a deed’s validity as to the obligor.”
Rowe v. Schultz, 642 P.2d 881 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “1 Luhrs did not involve a statutory provision such as A.R.S. § 33-412. Indeed, that opinion makes no reference to any recording or judgment lien statute.”
3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Est. Serv., 229 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 33-412(B)(2007), provides that an unrecorded instrument “as between the parties and their heirs, and as to all subsequent purchasers with notice thereof, or without valuable consideration, shall be valid and binding.”
New Asset Subsidiary, L.L.C. v. Zelms (In re BFA Liquidation Trust), 331 B.R. 907 (D. Ariz. 2005).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-412(B)(2007) — 1 case
3502 Lending, LLC v. CTC Real Est. Serv., 229 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 33-412(B)(2007), provides that an unrecorded instrument “as between the parties and their heirs, and as to all subsequent purchasers with notice thereof, or without valuable consideration, shall be valid and binding.”
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.