Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 42
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16256 (2026)

Limitations

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

A. In the case of real or personal property, the correction of errors under this article is limited to the period during which the current owner of record held title to the property, if the owner is a purchaser in good faith and without notice of any error that could have caused proceedings to be initiated to correct the tax roll when the owner purchased the property.

B. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, and subject to section 42-16252, subsection E, a notice of proposed correction or notice of claim filed under this article is limited to the current tax year in which the notice of proposed correction or notice of claim is filed and the three immediately preceding tax years.

C. If a specific error involving a particular property is established by a final nonappealable ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction in favor of the party who brought the action, the error may be corrected as of the date the action was filed or as of the date a notice of claim or notice of proposed correction was filed pursuant to this article, whichever is earlier, but no additional assessment or refund for any period before that date is permitted.

D. This article does not authorize an independent review of the overall valuation or legal classification of property that is not the result of an error as defined in section 42-16251.

E. The correction of errors under this article is limited to real property that has not been issued a certificate of purchase pursuant to chapter 18, article 3 of this title.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1999–2015 · leading case: Pima Cnty. Assessor v. Arizona State Bd. of Equalization, 987 P.2d 815 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pima Cnty. Assessor v. Arizona State Bd. of Equalization, 987 P.2d 815 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Section 42-16256(A) allows an owner of real or secured personal property to seek correction of “errors” limited to the period during which the owner held title to the property “if the owner is a purchaser in good faith and without notice of any error that could have caused…”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 244 P.3d 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “The court discussed the potential for “claim-splitting or other taxpayer abuses,” stating: We accordingly infer two principles in the error-correction scheme.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. TWC CHANDLER, 77 P.3d 468 (Ariz. T.C. 2003). · cites it 4× “The Legislature limited the retroactive collection of taxes under the error-correction statutes to the period during which the current owner of record held title to the property.”
Vista Verde v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 10× “Applying A.R.S. § 42-16256(A), which permits an owner who is a good faith purchaser “without notice of any error” at the time the property was purchased to bring a claim under the Error Correction Statutes, we held that an error correction claim may be brought subsequent to an…”
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “Thus, while the amended version of § 42-16256 does not apply to the case at hand, which involves tax years 2008 through 2011, the amendment clarifies the legislature’s original intent and 7 The County also argues that Taxpayer’s claim is prohibited by the last sentence of §…”
Park Cent. Mall, LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 4 P.3d 1075 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 9× “Finding the County’s notice of error invalid pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-16256(B) (1999), we. set aside the summary judgment entered in favor of the County and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of PCM.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16256(A) — 4 cases
Pima Cnty. Assessor v. Arizona State Bd. of Equalization, 987 P.2d 815 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “Section 42-16256(A) allows an owner of real or secured personal property to seek correction of “errors” limited to the period during which the owner held title to the property “if the owner is a purchaser in good faith and without notice of any error that could have caused…”
Maricopa Cnty. v. TWC CHANDLER, 77 P.3d 468 (Ariz. T.C. 2003). “The Legislature limited the retroactive collection of taxes under the error-correction statutes to the period during which the current owner of record held title to the property.”
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Thus, while the amended version of § 42-16256 does not apply to the case at hand, which involves tax years 2008 through 2011, the amendment clarifies the legislature’s original intent and 7 The County also argues that Taxpayer’s claim is prohibited by the last sentence of §…”
Vista Verde v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Applying A.R.S. § 42-16256(A), which permits an owner who is a good faith purchaser “without notice of any error” at the time the property was purchased to bring a claim under the Error Correction Statutes, we held that an error correction claim may be brought subsequent to an…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16256(B) — 6 cases
Pima Cnty. Assessor v. Arizona State Bd. of Equalization, 987 P.2d 815 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “Section 42-16256(A) allows an owner of real or secured personal property to seek correction of “errors” limited to the period during which the owner held title to the property “if the owner is a purchaser in good faith and without notice of any error that could have caused…”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 244 P.3d 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “The court discussed the potential for “claim-splitting or other taxpayer abuses,” stating: We accordingly infer two principles in the error-correction scheme.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. TWC CHANDLER, 77 P.3d 468 (Ariz. T.C. 2003). “The Legislature limited the retroactive collection of taxes under the error-correction statutes to the period during which the current owner of record held title to the property.”
Park Cent. Mall, LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 4 P.3d 1075 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “Finding the County’s notice of error invalid pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-16256(B) (1999), we. set aside the summary judgment entered in favor of the County and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of PCM.”
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Thus, while the amended version of § 42-16256 does not apply to the case at hand, which involves tax years 2008 through 2011, the amendment clarifies the legislature’s original intent and 7 The County also argues that Taxpayer’s claim is prohibited by the last sentence of §…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16256(B)(1) — 1 case
Park Cent. Mall, LLC v. Maricopa Cnty., 4 P.3d 1075 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “Finding the County’s notice of error invalid pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-16256(B) (1999), we. set aside the summary judgment entered in favor of the County and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of PCM.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16256(D) — 2 cases
Vista Verde v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Applying A.R.S. § 42-16256(A), which permits an owner who is a good faith purchaser “without notice of any error” at the time the property was purchased to bring a claim under the Error Correction Statutes, we held that an error correction claim may be brought subsequent to an…”
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Thus, while the amended version of § 42-16256 does not apply to the case at hand, which involves tax years 2008 through 2011, the amendment clarifies the legislature’s original intent and 7 The County also argues that Taxpayer’s claim is prohibited by the last sentence 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.