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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-727 (2026)

Sale under execution; deficiency; order of liens; writ of possession

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

A. Except as provided in sections 33-729 and 33-730, if the mortgaged property does not sell for an amount sufficient to satisfy the judgment, an execution may be issued for the balance against the mortgagor where there has been personal service, or the defendant has appeared in the action.

B. If there are other liens on the property sold, or other payments secured by the same mortgage, they shall be paid in their order, and if the money secured by any such lien is not yet due, a rebate of interest, to be ascertained by the court, shall be made by the holder, or his lien on such property will be postponed to those of a junior date, and if there are no other liens the balance shall be paid to the mortgagor. If redemption is not made and the mortgagor or his assigns refuse, after expiration of the time for redemption, to deliver possession of the foreclosed property, the court shall order a writ of possession issued placing the purchaser or his assigns in possession. All executions upon judgments for foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust upon real property shall comply with section 12-1566. Any sale of real property to satisfy a judgment under section 33-725 or 33-814 shall be a credit on the judgment in the amount of either the fair market value of the real property or the sale price of the real property at sheriff's sale, whichever is greater, in accordance with section 12-1566.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2022 · leading case: Faber v. Althoff, 812 P.2d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Faber v. Althoff, 812 P.2d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “§ 33-725, read the words “shall provide” to mean that “a foreclosure judgment shall specifically provide for the things set forth in said subsection B, except when as set forth in Section 33-727 there has not been personal service and the defendant has not appeared in the action.”
Csa 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, 341 P.3d 452 (Ariz. 2014). · cites it 2× “See AR.S. §§ 33-727, 33-729(A). ¶ 10 A.R.S. § 33-814(A) governs deficiency recovery actions against parties liable on debts secured by deeds of trust.”
Martha McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan Pc, 893 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2018). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 33-727 (A), 33-729(B)– (C).”
Darnell v. Denton, 669 P.2d 981 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “The appellees argue that they were entitled to a deficiency judgment under their note and deed of trust and pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-727(A). 3 No doubt they were so entitled if they had prayed for that kind of relief but they did not.”
Nat'l Bank v. Schwartz, 283 P.3d 41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “) Section 33-727 provides in pertinent part “if the mortgaged property does not sell for an amount sufficient to satisfy the judgment, an execution may be issued for the balance against the mortgagor____” (Emphasis added.”
N. Arizona Props. v. Pinetop Props. Grp., 725 P.2d 501 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Northern contends that it is entitled to the deficiency judgment as authorized by A.R.S. § 33-727(A) because Pinetop is not entitled to the exemption provided by A.”
Greater Arizona Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Gleeson, 429 P.2d 464 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 4× “Section 33-727, subsec. A reads as follows: “A.”
Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 13× “DISCUSSION ¶6 Steinmetz argues the superior court erred by distributing the excess proceeds to Everyone Wins pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-727. He argues: (1) the excess proceeds from the sheriff’s sale of a residence on 2.”
Tortosa Homeowners Ass'n v. Davis Garcia (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 11× “Durable Investments LLC cross-appeals the court’s determination that A.R.S. § 33-727(B) mandates payment of such proceeds to all lienholders before payment to the debtor.”
Ashton Ranch v. jones/patterson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10× “First, even if Patterson succeeded to the HOA’s interest, that lien was extinguished upon receipt of funds from the sale because the HOA received enough to satisfy the judgment.”
Vista v. Millan/patterson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 9× “Second, Patterson’s argument is not supported by a reasonable reading of A.R.S. § 33-727. Under subsection B, a lien, or some other interest that might constitute a valid claim to the excess proceeds, must, of necessity, already exist at the time of sale.”
Az Home v. Maricopoly (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “We vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings because, even assuming a senior lienholder could properly claim the excess proceeds under A.R.S. § 33-727(B), Maricopoly did not establish it received an equitable assignment of any senior lien rights.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-727(A) — 5 cases
Faber v. Althoff, 812 P.2d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “§ 33-725, read the words “shall provide” to mean that “a foreclosure judgment shall specifically provide for the things set forth in said subsection B, except when as set forth in Section 33-727 there has not been personal service and the defendant has not appeared in the action.”
Darnell v. Denton, 669 P.2d 981 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “The appellees argue that they were entitled to a deficiency judgment under their note and deed of trust and pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-727(A). 3 No doubt they were so entitled if they had prayed for that kind of relief but they did not.”
N. Arizona Props. v. Pinetop Props. Grp., 725 P.2d 501 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “Northern contends that it is entitled to the deficiency judgment as authorized by A.R.S. § 33-727(A) because Pinetop is not entitled to the exemption provided by A.”
Vista v. Millan/patterson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “Second, Patterson’s argument is not supported by a reasonable reading of A.R.S. § 33-727. Under subsection B, a lien, or some other interest that might constitute a valid claim to the excess proceeds, must, of necessity, already exist at the time of sale.”
Ashton Ranch v. jones/patterson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “First, even if Patterson succeeded to the HOA’s interest, that lien was extinguished upon receipt of funds from the sale because the HOA received enough to satisfy the judgment.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-727(B) — 7 cases
Tortosa Homeowners Ass'n v. Davis Garcia (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “Durable Investments LLC cross-appeals the court’s determination that A.R.S. § 33-727(B) mandates payment of such proceeds to all lienholders before payment to the debtor.”
Ashton Ranch v. jones/patterson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “First, even if Patterson succeeded to the HOA’s interest, that lien was extinguished upon receipt of funds from the sale because the HOA received enough to satisfy the judgment.”
Az Home v. Maricopoly (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). “We vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings because, even assuming a senior lienholder could properly claim the excess proceeds under A.R.S. § 33-727(B), Maricopoly did not establish it received an equitable assignment of any senior lien rights.”
Vista v. Millan/patterson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “Second, Patterson’s argument is not supported by a reasonable reading of A.R.S. § 33-727. Under subsection B, a lien, or some other interest that might constitute a valid claim to the excess proceeds, must, of necessity, already exist at the time of sale.”
Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “DISCUSSION ¶6 Steinmetz argues the superior court erred by distributing the excess proceeds to Everyone Wins pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-727. He argues: (1) the excess proceeds from the sheriff’s sale of a residence on 2.”
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.