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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-727 (2026)

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

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
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, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0549 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 19, 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, 524 P.3d 1157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 11× “§ 33-727(B) mandates payment of such proceeds to all lienholders before payment to the debtor. For the reasons that follow, we conclude § 33-727(B) does not entitle a senior lienholder to the excess proceeds that the junior lien’s foreclosure generates but nevertheless affirm…”
Ashton Ranch v. jones/patterson, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0299 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2020). · cites it 10× “Second, Patterson’s argument is not supported by a reasonable reading of A.R.S. § 33-727.”
Vista v. Millan/patterson, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0609 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019). · cites it 9× “Though the statute does not explicitly state that these interests must exist “at the time of the sale,” any other conclusion would lead to uncertainty and does not flow logically from the statute itself; liens that do not exist at the time of sale cannot be “paid in their order.”
Az Home v. Maricopoly, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0254 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2021). · cites it 6× “§ 33-727(B), Maricopoly did not establish it received an equitable assignment of any senior lien rights. BACKGROUND ¶2 Trails at Amber Ridge Homeowners Association (the “Association”) sued to judicially foreclose on a home owned by Gerardo Macias for unpaid assessments.”
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, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0609 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019). “Though the statute does not explicitly state that these interests must exist “at the time of the sale,” any other conclusion would lead to uncertainty and does not flow logically from the statute itself; liens that do not exist at the time of sale cannot be “paid in their order.”
Ashton Ranch v. jones/patterson, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0299 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2020). “Second, Patterson’s argument is not supported by a reasonable reading of A.R.S. § 33-727.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-727(B): 7 cases
Tortosa Homeowners Ass'n v. Davis Garcia, 524 P.3d 1157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 33-727(B) mandates payment of such proceeds to all lienholders before payment to the debtor. For the reasons that follow, we conclude § 33-727(B) does not entitle a senior lienholder to the excess proceeds that the junior lien’s foreclosure generates but nevertheless affirm…”
Ashton Ranch v. jones/patterson, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0299 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2020). “Second, Patterson’s argument is not supported by a reasonable reading of A.R.S. § 33-727.”
Az Home v. Maricopoly, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0254 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2021). “§ 33-727(B), Maricopoly did not establish it received an equitable assignment of any senior lien rights. BACKGROUND ¶2 Trails at Amber Ridge Homeowners Association (the “Association”) sued to judicially foreclose on a home owned by Gerardo Macias for unpaid assessments.”
Vista v. Millan/patterson, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0609 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019). “Though the statute does not explicitly state that these interests must exist “at the time of the sale,” any other conclusion would lead to uncertainty and does not flow logically from the statute itself; liens that do not exist at the time of sale cannot be “paid in their order.”
Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0549 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 19, 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.