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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18153 (2026)

Amount required for redemption

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

To redeem a real property tax lien, a person must pay to the county treasurer:

1. The amount for which the real property tax lien was sold, with interest at the rate stated in the certificate of purchase.

2. The amount of all taxes accruing on the real property after the sale and paid by the purchaser and endorsed on the certificate of purchase, with interest on the subsequent taxes at the same rate as stated in the certificate of purchase.

3. Any statutory fees paid by the purchaser or the purchaser's assigns in connection with the certificate, except the processing fee imposed by section 42-18116, subsection C, with interest at the rate stated in the certificate of purchase except as otherwise provided by this chapter.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2000–2010 · leading case: Friedemann v. Kirk, 5 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friedemann v. Kirk, 5 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “¶ 5 Friedemann contends that Castillo’s February 23 redemption was ineffective because on that, date the Treasurer rejected Castillo’s check.”
Sun Valley Fin. Servs. of Phoenix, L.L.C. v. Guzman, 134 P.3d 400 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “§ 42-18151 (1999). A tax hen is “redeemed” when the property owner or other person authorized by A.”
Roberts v. Robert, 158 P.3d 899 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 42-18153 (Supp.2006). If a tax hen certificate is not redeemed within three years of the date of purchase, the purchaser may bring an action in the superi- or court to foreclose the right to redeem.”
Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, L.P., 222 P.3d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “See AR.S. §§ 42-18153 & 42-18206. Here, such redemption occurred before the conditions to perfect service by publication were met and, accordingly, before service of process was “complete.”
Ulan v. Pima Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 145 P.3d 650 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 42-18153 and 42-18155. ¶ 5 The Ulans argue that, under “the plain language of the statutes,” the interest they, as successful bidders, are entitled to charge begins to accrue in the month of a tax sale and that, because “a fraction of a month is counted as a whole…”
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.