Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-722 (2026)
Election between action on debt or to foreclose
✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-722 (2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
If separate actions are brought on the debt and to foreclose the mortgage given to secure it, the plaintiff shall elect which to prosecute and the other shall be dismissed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases, 1970–2018 · leading case: Baker v. Gardner
Baker v. Gardner (1989)
“The court of appeals reversed, reasoning that A.R.S. § 33-722 (providing for a creditor's election of remedies) permitted the action.”
Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. (1991)
“Under A.R.S. § 33-722, a mortgagee can foreclose and seek a deficiency judgment or can sue on the note and then execute on the resultant judgment but cannot bring both actions simultaneously.”
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta (1994)
“He argues that this is mandated by A.R.S. § 33-722, which provides: "If separate actions are brought on the debt and to foreclose the mortgage given to secure it, the plaintiff shall elect which to prosecute and the other shall be dismissed.”
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Segel (1992)
“DISCUSSION Southwest argues that the trial court erred in ruling that, even though it was a non-purchase money lender, it could not waive its security and sue Segel directly on the promissory notes.”
Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co. v. Kelly (1970)
“proper in view of A.R.S. § 33-722 which is as follows: “If separate actions are brought on the debt and to foreclose the mortgage given to secure it, the plaintiff shall elect which to prosecute and the other shall be dismissed.”
Nydam v. Crawford (1994)
“Although that statute covers cases under AR.S. § 33-722 in which one has elected to waive security and sue directly on the debt, 2 it is not restricted to such cases.”
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC (2014)
“§ 33-814(A)’s fair market value provision cannot be prospectively waived. ¶ 15 When Loop defaulted on its debt, CSA (or its predecessor in interest, MidFirst Bank) could have obtained a judgment for the entirety of the outstanding debt by suing on the note alone.”
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Tolliver (1995)
“See A.R.S. § 33-722; Darnell v. Denton, 137 Ariz.”
Bank One, Arizona, N.A. v. Beauvais (1997)
“section 33-722, which allows creditors to elect remedies.”
Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Mason (1987)
“The mortgagee’s separate right to bring an action on the debt rather than foreclosure is established by A.R.S. § 33-722, which provides that “[i]f separate actions are brought on the debt and to foreclose the mortgage given to secure it, the plaintiff shall elect which to…”
Deming National Bank v. Walraven (1982)
“After the mortgagors defaulted, both the Bank and Walraven filed motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank, thereby allowing it to proceed with the foreclosure action against Walraven.”
National Bank v. Schwartz (2012)
“Under A.R.S. § 33-722, a mortgagee can sue to judicially foreclose its mortgage or can sue on the note and waive the mortgage, but it cannot maintain both actions simultaneously.”
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.