42-18204. Judgment foreclosing right to redeem; effect
A. In an action to foreclose the right to redeem:
1. If the court finds that the tax lien sale is valid, the tax lien has not been redeemed and the defendant's request for an excess proceeds sale is unreasonable or the defendant did not request an excess proceeds sale, the court shall enter judgment:
(a) Foreclosing the right of the defendant to redeem.
(b) Directing the county treasurer to expeditiously execute and deliver to the party in whose favor judgment is entered, including the state, a deed conveying the property described in the certificate of purchase.
2. If the court finds that the tax lien sale is valid, the tax lien has not been redeemed and the defendant's request for an excess proceeds sale is reasonable, the court shall enter judgment:
(a) Foreclosing the right of the defendant to redeem.
(b) Directing the sale of the property pursuant to article 6 of this chapter.
(c) Setting the opening bid for the property as the total of the amounts described in subsection B, paragraph 1, subdivisions (a), (b), (c) and (e) of this section and any other reasonable fees as determined by the court.
B. A property owner whose right to redeem is being foreclosed may request the court to determine if the sale of the property to recover excess proceeds is reasonable. The court shall determine that the sale of the property for excess proceeds is reasonable if the sale price of the property is likely to be more than $2,500 above the total of the amounts described in paragraph 1 of this subsection. If a request is made for an excess proceeds sale, the following information shall be provided to the court for the purposes of determining if an excess proceeds sale is reasonable:
1. The certificate of purchase holder shall provide all of the following:
(a) The costs related to filing the claim to foreclose the right to redeem, including estimated attorney fees and costs to be incurred through the date of the excess proceeds sale, if ordered.
(b) The amount for which the real property tax lien was sold, with interest at a rate of sixteen percent per annum from the date of the tax lien sale through the date of the excess proceeds sale, if ordered.
(c) The amount of any statutory fees the certificate of purchase holder paid in connection with the certificate of purchase, except the processing fee imposed by section 42-18116, subsection C, with interest at a rate of sixteen percent per annum from the date of the tax lien sale through the date of the excess proceeds sale, if ordered.
(d) The amount of all other recorded state liens or encumbrances on the state property as indicated on a title report provided by the certificate of purchase holder, including other years in which taxes are delinquent. For the purposes of this subdivision, the certificate of purchase holder does not have to determine the actual balance owed on any lien or encumbrance on the property, except for property taxes owed.
(e) The estimated cost of the sale of property pursuant to article 6 of this chapter.
(f) Any other evidence relating to the value of the property or objecting to the excess proceeds sale that the certificate of purchase holder deems necessary.
2. The property owner whose right to redeem is being foreclosed shall provide a reasonable estimate of the market value of the property.
C. After entering judgment the parties whose rights to redeem the tax lien are thereby foreclosed have no further legal or equitable right, title or interest in the property subject to the right of appeal and stay of execution as in other civil actions.
D. The foreclosure of the right to redeem does not extinguish any of the following:
1. An easement on or appurtenant to the property.
2. A lien for an assessment levied pursuant to title 48, chapter 4, 6, 14 or 18 or section 9-276. For the purposes of this paragraph, assessment does not include an abatement lien imposed under section 9-499.
3. If the court finds that the request for an excess proceeds sale is reasonable, the property owner's interest in the excess proceeds from the sale of the property pursuant to article 6 of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Treasurer, 88 P.3d 1181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 11× “The parties requested the court to rule on the following issue as a question of law: Whether the Treasurer must comply with a final and non-appealable judgment foreclosing a certificate of purchase as provided under A.R.S. § 42-18204, and directing him to issue a deed pursuant…”
Roberts v. Robert, 158 P.3d 899 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 5× “¶ 17 Section 42-18204 (Supp.2006) recognizes this point.”
Friedemann v. Kirk, 5 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 7× “See A.R.S. §§ 42-18204 and 42-18205. The Treasurer instead sent Friedemann a letter stating that Castillo had redeemed the property on February 23,1999, and returned Friedemann’s investment in the *618 property.”
Bauza Holdings, L.L.C. v. Primeco, Inc., 18 P.3d 132 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “§ 42-18201 allows the holder of a tax lien certificate to bring an action in superior court at any time beginning three years after the tax lien sale “to foreclose the right to redeem”; and A.R.S. § 42-18204 provides: A. In an action to foreclose the right to redeem, if the…”
Sun Valley Fin. Servs. of Phoenix, L.L.C. v. Guzman, 134 P.3d 400 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “§ 42-18201 as well as on A.R.S. § 42-18204(A) which states that a court shall enter a judgment foreclosing the right to redeem “if the court finds that the sale [of the tax lien] is valid, and that the tax lien has not been redeemed.”
Pinal Vista Props., L.L.C. v. Turnbull, 91 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“” In Bauza, we interpreted the first clause, in conjunction with § 42-18204(B), 2 applicable to judicial foreclosures of redemption rights, as establishing parity among private tax lien-holders.”
Delo v. Gmac Mortg., LLC, U.S. Bank, N.A., 302 P.3d 658 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “We reasoned that, as an heir, the second son was entitled to redeem by reason of his ownership interest in the property, which he had acquired “by operation of law” after his mother’s death. Id. ¶ 14. And “because the lienholders failed to join him as a defendant in their…”
Nat'l Tax v. Sweeney (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 42-18204(A). The entry of judgment extinguishes all “legal or equitable right, title or interest in the property” of the parties whose rights to redeem are foreclosed.”
Searle v. Allen (9th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 4× “Searle sued Arapaho, American Pride, Maricopa County, and Allen (collectively, “Defendants”) in district court, challenging the foreclosure of her home, Defendants’ retention of the equity in her home exceeding the tax debt and related costs, and the facial constitutionality of…”
Valencia v. Allen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 42-18204(A). After that, the private purchaser may dispose of the property how they wish, including by selling it and keeping any surplus value above the amount paid for the tax lien.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18204(A) — 4 cases
Sun Valley Fin. Servs. of Phoenix, L.L.C. v. Guzman, 134 P.3d 400 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“§ 42-18201 as well as on A.R.S. § 42-18204(A) which states that a court shall enter a judgment foreclosing the right to redeem “if the court finds that the sale [of the tax lien] is valid, and that the tax lien has not been redeemed.”
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Treasurer, 88 P.3d 1181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“The parties requested the court to rule on the following issue as a question of law: Whether the Treasurer must comply with a final and non-appealable judgment foreclosing a certificate of purchase as provided under A.R.S. § 42-18204, and directing him to issue a deed pursuant…”
Nat'l Tax v. Sweeney (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“” A.R.S. § 42-18204(A). The entry of judgment extinguishes all “legal or equitable right, title or interest in the property” of the parties whose rights to redeem are foreclosed.”
Valencia v. Allen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“A.R.S. § 42-18204(A). After that, the private purchaser may dispose of the property how they wish, including by selling it and keeping any surplus value above the amount paid for the tax lien.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18204(A)(1) — 1 case
Delo v. Gmac Mortg., LLC, U.S. Bank, N.A., 302 P.3d 658 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“We reasoned that, as an heir, the second son was entitled to redeem by reason of his ownership interest in the property, which he had acquired “by operation of law” after his mother’s death. Id. ¶ 14. And “because the lienholders failed to join him as a defendant in their…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18204(A)(2) — 3 cases
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Treasurer, 88 P.3d 1181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“The parties requested the court to rule on the following issue as a question of law: Whether the Treasurer must comply with a final and non-appealable judgment foreclosing a certificate of purchase as provided under A.R.S. § 42-18204, and directing him to issue a deed pursuant…”
Sun Valley Fin. Servs. of Phoenix, L.L.C. v. Guzman, 134 P.3d 400 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“§ 42-18201 as well as on A.R.S. § 42-18204(A) which states that a court shall enter a judgment foreclosing the right to redeem “if the court finds that the sale [of the tax lien] is valid, and that the tax lien has not been redeemed.”
Friedemann v. Kirk, 5 P.3d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“See A.R.S. §§ 42-18204 and 42-18205. The Treasurer instead sent Friedemann a letter stating that Castillo had redeemed the property on February 23,1999, and returned Friedemann’s investment in the *618 property.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18204(A)(l) — 1 case
Roberts v. Robert, 158 P.3d 899 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶ 17 Section 42-18204 (Supp.2006) recognizes this point.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18204(B) — 5 cases
Roberts v. Robert, 158 P.3d 899 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶ 17 Section 42-18204 (Supp.2006) recognizes this point.”
Pinal Vista Props., L.L.C. v. Turnbull, 91 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“” In Bauza, we interpreted the first clause, in conjunction with § 42-18204(B), 2 applicable to judicial foreclosures of redemption rights, as establishing parity among private tax lien-holders.”
Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Treasurer, 88 P.3d 1181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“The parties requested the court to rule on the following issue as a question of law: Whether the Treasurer must comply with a final and non-appealable judgment foreclosing a certificate of purchase as provided under A.R.S. § 42-18204, and directing him to issue a deed pursuant…”
Bauza Holdings, L.L.C. v. Primeco, Inc., 18 P.3d 132 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“§ 42-18201 allows the holder of a tax lien certificate to bring an action in superior court at any time beginning three years after the tax lien sale “to foreclose the right to redeem”; and A.R.S. § 42-18204 provides: A. In an action to foreclose the right to redeem, if the…”
Nat'l Tax v. Sweeney (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“” A.R.S. § 42-18204(A). The entry of judgment extinguishes all “legal or equitable right, title or interest in the property” of the parties whose rights to redeem are foreclosed.”
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.