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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-701 (2026)

Interests which may be mortgaged; formal requirements; recording

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

A. Any interest in real property capable of being transferred may be mortgaged.

B. A mortgage may be created, renewed or extended only by writing executed with the formalities required of a grant of real property, and may be acknowledged, certified and recorded in like manner and with like effect.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1957–1991 · leading case: N. Arizona Props. v. Pinetop Props. Grp., 725 P.2d 501 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
N. Arizona Props. v. Pinetop Props. Grp., 725 P.2d 501 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “It is not a mortgage (A.R.S. § 33-701, et seq.). However, pursuant to A.”
Chaparral Dev. v. RMED Int'l, Inc., 823 P.2d 1317 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “It contends that the right of reinstatement was given as a corollary to the right of redemption which exists under the mortgage foreclosure chapter A.R.S. §§ 33-701 through 33-729, but not under the deed of trust chapter A.”
Fremming Constr. Co. v. Sec. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 566 P.2d 315 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Appellee moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the alleged oral agreement between appellant and appellee violated the statute of frauds. In particular, appellee contended below that the agreement between appellant and appellee was required to be in writing by virtue of…”
Harbel Oil Co. v. Steele, 318 P.2d 359 (Ariz. 1957). · cites it 2× “1939 (A.R.S. § 33-701).. This section provides as follows: “Interest in real property mortgageable — Formalities in making.”
Cooley v. Veling, 505 P.2d 1381 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 33-701, subsec. A provides that any interest in real property capable of being transferred may be mortgaged.”
Davidson-Chudacoff/Kol-Pak of Arizona, Inc. v. Pioneer Hotel Co., 630 P.2d 550 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 33-701. This type of formality requires that the instrument creating the encumbrance be “subscribed and delivered by the party disposing of the estate,” and “signed by the grantor.”
Skousen v. L.J. Dev. Co., 655 P.2d 1341 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “and § 33-701 et seq. . The appellees further argue that if the liens are held to be effective, the appellants should be required to pay to the appellees the amount paid to redeem the property plus interest from the redemption date.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-701(B) — 1 case
Fremming Constr. Co. v. Sec. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 566 P.2d 315 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). “Appellee moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the alleged oral agreement between appellant and appellee violated the statute of frauds. In particular, appellee contended below that the agreement between appellant and appellee was required to be in writing by virtue of…”
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.