A. A person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is liable to the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property for the sum of not less than five thousand dollars, or for treble the actual damages caused by the recording, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney fees and costs of the action.
B. The owner or beneficial title holder of the real property may bring an action pursuant to this section in the superior court in the county in which the real property is located for such relief as is required to immediately clear title to the real property as provided for in the rules of procedure for special actions. This special action may be brought based on the ground that the lien is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid. The owner or beneficial title holder may bring a separate special action to clear title to the real property or join such action with an action for damages as described in this section. In either case, the owner or beneficial title holder may recover reasonable attorney fees and costs of the action if he prevails.
C. A person who is named in a document which purports to create an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property and who knows that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid shall be liable to the owner or title holder for the sum of not less than one thousand dollars, or for treble actual damages, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney fees and costs as provided in this section, if he wilfully refuses to release or correct such document of record within twenty days from the date of a written request from the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property.
D. A document purporting to create an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property not authorized by statute, judgment or other specific legal authority is presumed to be groundless and invalid.
E. A person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
149
cases (
40 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case:
Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 806 P.2d 870 (Ariz. 1991).
Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 806 P.2d 870 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 64× “Moreover, the court found that plaintiffs' attorney filed the lis pendens knowing that the document was groundless and contained a material misstatement.”
SWC Baseline & Crismon Investors, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P'ship, 265 P.3d 1070 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 59× “¶ 28 SWC argues that as a matter of law, a quitclaim deed may not constitute a claim of interest in real property subject to AR.S. § 33-420 because a quitclaim deed does not “purport [] to create an interest in” real property.”
State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., 165 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 37× “Objecting to the State’s filing, Mabery wrote to State Parks on March 3, 2000 and warned that Mabery intended to protect its rights under A.R.S. § 33-420, which prohibits the improper recording of documents claiming an interest in real property.”
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 263 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 27× “1 After Delmastro filed a complaint seeking to foreclose the lien, Taco Bell filed an answer and counterclaim alleging wrongful recording of a lien and lis pen-dens pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420. On appeal, Delmastro contends the trial court erred by granting Taco Bell’s motion…”
Evergreen West, Inc. v. Boyd, 810 P.2d 612 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 46× “On June 13, 1990, Evergreen filed a complaint for special action pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420 seeking removal of the lis pendens and damages.”
Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 311 P.3d 237 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 25× “¶ 2 Nancy Sitton brought an action for quiet title and damages under A.R.S. § 33-420 based on allegedly false assignments and notices that were recorded before a trustee’s sale of her home.”
Hatch Companies Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Bank, 826 P.2d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 36× “(Hatch) appeals from a summary judgment for The Arizona Bank, the predecessor in interest to appellee Security Pacific Bank of Arizona (Bank), awarding it statutory damages of $5,000 pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420 and costs and attorney’s fees of $3,500 for Hatch’s wrongful filing…”
Williamson v. PVORBIT, INC., 263 P.3d 77 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 19× “¶ 7 In February 2008, the Willamsons filed a lawsuit alleging PVOrbit violated AR.S. § 33-420 by recording and refusing to release the Lien.”
Coventry Homes, Inc. v. Scottscom P'ship, 745 P.2d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 30× “Western Pacific, the court concluded that the legislature intended to include such a document in A.R.S. § 33-420. We agree. As the court stated, “were this not the rule, a groundless lis pendens could be filed with impunity in a simple money judgment action, or in any action…”
Richey v. W. Pac. Dev. Corp., 684 P.2d 169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 29× “You indicated on the phone that you were aware of A.R.S. § 33-420 which not only provides damages for a willful filing of a Lis Pendens but makes it a misdemeanor.”
Karl v. US Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 308 P.3d 1173 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 16× “2 The Stauffers contended that the Recorded Documents violated A.R.S. § 33-420, which prohibits recording false or fraudulent documents that assert an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, a property.”
Bennett v. Baxter Grp., Inc., 224 P.3d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 9× “Therefore, Baxter has not shown that Bennett violated § 33-420. ¶ 10 Baxter further contends that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of Bennett and Meyerstein because they violated § 33-420(C) by “refusing to release a groundless and invalid document within twenty days of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-420(A) — 86 cases
Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 806 P.2d 870 (Ariz. 1991).
“Moreover, the court found that plaintiffs' attorney filed the lis pendens knowing that the document was groundless and contained a material misstatement.”
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 263 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“1 After Delmastro filed a complaint seeking to foreclose the lien, Taco Bell filed an answer and counterclaim alleging wrongful recording of a lien and lis pen-dens pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420. On appeal, Delmastro contends the trial court erred by granting Taco Bell’s motion…”
Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 311 P.3d 237 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“¶ 2 Nancy Sitton brought an action for quiet title and damages under A.R.S. § 33-420 based on allegedly false assignments and notices that were recorded before a trustee’s sale of her home.”
Coventry Homes, Inc. v. Scottscom P'ship, 745 P.2d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Western Pacific, the court concluded that the legislature intended to include such a document in A.R.S. § 33-420. We agree. As the court stated, “were this not the rule, a groundless lis pendens could be filed with impunity in a simple money judgment action, or in any action…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-420(A)(2000) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-420(B) — 19 cases
State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., 165 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Objecting to the State’s filing, Mabery wrote to State Parks on March 3, 2000 and warned that Mabery intended to protect its rights under A.R.S. § 33-420, which prohibits the improper recording of documents claiming an interest in real property.”
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 263 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“1 After Delmastro filed a complaint seeking to foreclose the lien, Taco Bell filed an answer and counterclaim alleging wrongful recording of a lien and lis pen-dens pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420. On appeal, Delmastro contends the trial court erred by granting Taco Bell’s motion…”
Evergreen West, Inc. v. Boyd, 810 P.2d 612 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
“On June 13, 1990, Evergreen filed a complaint for special action pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420 seeking removal of the lis pendens and damages.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-420(C) — 15 cases
Bennett v. Baxter Grp., Inc., 224 P.3d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“Therefore, Baxter has not shown that Bennett violated § 33-420. ¶ 10 Baxter further contends that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of Bennett and Meyerstein because they violated § 33-420(C) by “refusing to release a groundless and invalid document within twenty days of…”
Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 806 P.2d 870 (Ariz. 1991).
“Moreover, the court found that plaintiffs' attorney filed the lis pendens knowing that the document was groundless and contained a material misstatement.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-420(D) — 8 cases
Bennett v. Baxter Grp., Inc., 224 P.3d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“Therefore, Baxter has not shown that Bennett violated § 33-420. ¶ 10 Baxter further contends that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of Bennett and Meyerstein because they violated § 33-420(C) by “refusing to release a groundless and invalid document within twenty days of…”
Richey v. W. Pac. Dev. Corp., 684 P.2d 169 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“You indicated on the phone that you were aware of A.R.S. § 33-420 which not only provides damages for a willful filing of a Lis Pendens but makes it a misdemeanor.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-420(E) — 3 cases
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.