Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-452 (2026)

Conveyance of community property

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A conveyance or incumbrance of community property is not valid unless executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife, except unpatented mining claims which may be conveyed or incumbered by the spouse having the title or right of possession without the other spouse joining in the conveyance or incumbrance.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1963–2015 · leading case: King v. Uhlmann, 437 P.2d 928 (Ariz. 1968).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

King v. Uhlmann, 437 P.2d 928 (Ariz. 1968). · cites it 30× “" 11 A.R.S. § 33-452 It is evident that the legislature intended to prevent a husband from conveying or encumbering community property unless it was executed and acknowledged by the wife, the object of which is apparent to prevent the husband from defrauding the wife.”

Garn v. Garn, 745 P.2d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “The legislature has further provided that: A conveyance or incumbrance of community property is not valid unless executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife, except unpatented mining claims____ A.R.S. § 33-452. The legislature has also provided a specific manner in which…”

Cecilia M Lewis Et Vir v. Ray C Debord Et Ux, 356 P.3d 314 (Ariz. 2015). · cites it 2× “” (emphasis added)); A.R.S. § 33-452 (“A conveyance or incumbrance of community property is not valid unless executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife____” (emphasis added)); A.”

Rogers v. Jones, 613 P.2d 844 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Rogers as to deferred payments, constituted an invalid amendment of the option in violation of A.R.S. § 33-452: "a conveyance or incumbrance of community property is not valid unless executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife.”

Saxon v. Riddel, 493 P.2d 127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “Insofar as real property is concerned in Arizona, all the common law disabilities attached to a married woman’s disposition of her property have been abolished.”

Arizona Cent. Credit Union v. Holden, 432 P.2d 276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff, who claims through the rights of the husband, has presented no evidence to support its contention that the quitclaim deed conveyed the land to the husband as his separate property.”

Dempsey v. Oliver, 379 P.2d 908 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 2× “Compare A.R.S. § 33-452, which makes invalid a conveyance of community realty unless executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife, and A.”

Lockwood v. Mattingly, 397 P.2d 64 (Ariz. 1964). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 33-452 reads: “A conveyance or incumbrance of community property is not valid unless executed and acknowleged by both husband and wife, except unpatented mining claims which may be eonveyed or incumbered by tbe spouse having the title or right of possession without the…”

Mgmt. Clearing, Inc. v. Vance, 464 P.2d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 33-452 states in part: “A conveyance or incumbrance of community property is not valid unless executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife, * * The State of Washington has considered this question in McGlauflin v.”

Jacobs v. Jacobs, 415 P.2d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 33-452. Had there been any evidence that Caroline Jacobs had assented to or signed the purported trust agreement, the judgment of the superior court might have been quite different.”

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.