Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-729

Purchase money mortgage; limitation on liability

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

A. Except as provided in subsections B and C of this section, if a mortgage is given to secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price, or to secure a loan to pay all or part of the purchase price, of a parcel of real property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or single two-family dwelling, the lien of judgment in an action to foreclose such mortgage shall not extend to any other property of the judgment debtor, nor may general execution be issued against the judgment debtor to enforce such judgment, and if the proceeds of the mortgaged real property sold under special execution are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment may not otherwise be satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

B. The balance due on a mortgage foreclosure judgment after sale of the mortgaged property shall constitute a lien against other property of the judgment debtor, general execution may be issued thereon, and the judgment may be otherwise satisfied out of other property of the judgment debtor, if the court determines, after sale upon special execution and upon written application and such notice to the judgment debtor as the court may require, that the sale price was less than the amount of the judgment because of diminution in the value of such real property while such property was in the ownership, possession, or control of the judgment debtor because of voluntary waste committed or permitted by the judgment debtor, not to exceed the amount of diminution in value as determined by such court.

C. For mortgages that are originated after December 31, 2014, subsection A of this section does not apply to real property as follows:

1. Real property owned by a person who is engaged in the business of constructing and selling dwellings that was acquired by the person in the course of that business and that is subject to a mortgage given to secure payment of a loan for construction of a dwelling on the property for sale to another person.

2. Real property that contains a dwelling that was never substantially completed.

3. Real property that contains a dwelling that is intended to be utilized as a dwelling but that is never actually utilized as a dwelling.

D. For the purposes of this section, a dwelling is substantially completed if either of the following occurs:

1. Final inspection is completed, if required by the governmental body that issued the building permit for the dwelling.

2. If a final inspection is not required by the governmental body that issued the building permit, the dwelling has been completed in all material respects as prescribed in the applicable ordinances and regulations of the governmental body that issued the building permit for the dwelling.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: Baker v. Gardner

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Baker v. Gardner (1989) ariz · cites it 58× “33-722 to read 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, however should the plaintiff elect to waive the mortgage, he shall not be…”

Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. (1991) ariz · cites it 40× “Whether commercial developers of residential property who borrow for business purposes are entitled to the benefit of Arizona's consumer anti-deficiency statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-729(A) and 33-814(G). 2. Whether Arizona's anti-deficiency statutes apply when the encumbered…”

Helvetica Servicing Inc v. Michael S Pasquan (2020) ariz · cites it 13× “¶11 In Arizona, protection for residential borrowers is set forth in two anti-deficiency statutes: A.R.S. §§ 33-729(A) and -814(G). Residential borrowers are generally not subject to a deficiency judgment on a loan for the purchase of a home if the loan is secured by the home.”

Northern Arizona Properties v. Pinetop Properties Group (1986) arizctapp · cites it 24× “The single issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court properly construed A.R.S. § 33-729(A) as precluding a defi *10 ciency judgment in the foreclosure of a deed of trust as a mortgage.”

First Financial Bank, N.A. v. Claassen (2015) arizctapp · cites it 11× “Except as provided in subsections B and C of this section, if a mortgage is given to secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price, or to secure a loan to pay all or part of the purchase price, of a parcel of real property of two and one-half acres or less which is…”

Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Pasquan (2012) arizctapp · cites it 11× “” A.R.S. § 33-729(A). A deed of trust on the same property secured the Hamilton and Desert Hills loans.”

Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. (1989) arizctapp · cites it 27× “As explained to the legislature enacting A.R.S. § 33-729, the purpose of the bill was to protect the “homeowners” from deficiency judgments.”

National Bank v. Schwartz (2012) arizctapp · cites it 6× “” A.R.S. §§ 33-729(A) and -814(G). Rather than the deficiency flowing from the foreclosure, as asserted by Bank, the debt and all the potential recovery flow from the promissory note.”

Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Mason (1987) arizctapp · cites it 26× “The trial court denied Southwest’s motion for summary judgment but granted summary judgment on the borrowers’ motion, ruling that Southwest could not maintain a separate claim on the note without foreclosure because of the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-729 prohibiting deficiency…”

Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Ludi (1979) ariz · cites it 8× “This action terminated in summary judgment for the Ludis.”

Cely v. Deconcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin & Lacy, P.C. (1990) arizctapp · cites it 10× “The court treated the Gropp mortgage as a purchase money security interest and concluded that, even in the event of an assumption, Arizona’s mortgage anti-deficiency statute, *503 A.R.S. § 33-729, would have precluded a judgment against Clark for money damages.”

CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC (2014) ariz · cites it 4× “§ 33-814(A) (reducing deficiency by property’s fair market value), with AR.S. §§ 33-729(A), 33-814(G) (prohibiting deficiency judgments).”

Show all 41 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-729(A) — 29 cases

Baker v. Gardner (1989) ariz “33-722 to read 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, however should the plaintiff elect to waive the mortgage, he shall not be…”

Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp. (1991) ariz “Whether commercial developers of residential property who borrow for business purposes are entitled to the benefit of Arizona's consumer anti-deficiency statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-729(A) and 33-814(G). 2. Whether Arizona's anti-deficiency statutes apply when the encumbered…”

Helvetica Servicing Inc v. Michael S Pasquan (2020) ariz “¶11 In Arizona, protection for residential borrowers is set forth in two anti-deficiency statutes: A.R.S. §§ 33-729(A) and -814(G). Residential borrowers are generally not subject to a deficiency judgment on a loan for the purchase of a home if the loan is secured by the home.”

Northern Arizona Properties v. Pinetop Properties Group (1986) arizctapp “The single issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court properly construed A.R.S. § 33-729(A) as precluding a defi *10 ciency judgment in the foreclosure of a deed of trust as a mortgage.”

Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Pasquan (2012) arizctapp “” A.R.S. § 33-729(A). A deed of trust on the same property secured the Hamilton and Desert Hills loans.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-729(B) — 1 case

Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Mason (1987) arizctapp “The trial court denied Southwest’s motion for summary judgment but granted summary judgment on the borrowers’ motion, ruling that Southwest could not maintain a separate claim on the note without foreclosure because of the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-729 prohibiting deficiency…”

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.