Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1201 (2026)

Rate of interest for loan or indebtedness; interest on judgments; definitions

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

44-1201. Rate of interest for loan or indebtedness; interest on judgments; definitions

A. Interest on any loan, indebtedness or other obligation shall be as follows:

1. The maximum interest rate on medical debt shall be the lesser of the following:

(a) The annual rate equal to the weekly average one-year constant maturity treasury yield, as published by the board of governors of the federal reserve system, for the calendar week preceding the date when the consumer was first provided with a bill, or

(b) Three percent a year.

The maximum interest rate provided pursuant to this paragraph also applies to any judgments on medical debt.

2. For any loan, indebtedness or obligation other than medical debt, interest shall be at the rate of ten percent a year, unless a different rate is contracted for in writing, in which event any rate of interest may be agreed to. Interest on any judgment, other than a judgment on medical debt, that is based on a written agreement evidencing a loan, indebtedness or obligation that bears a rate of interest not in excess of the maximum permitted by law shall be at the rate of interest provided in the agreement and shall be specified in the judgment.

B. Unless specifically provided for in statute or a different rate is contracted for in writing, interest on any judgment other than a judgment on medical debt shall be at the lesser of ten percent a year or at a rate per year that is equal to one percent plus the prime rate as published by the board of governors of the federal reserve system in statistical release H.15 or any publication that may supersede it. A change in the rate that is prescribed in this subsection takes effect on the first business day following publication by the federal reserve. The judgment shall state the applicable interest rate and it shall not change after it is entered.

C. Interest on a judgment on a condemnation proceeding, including interest that is payable pursuant to section 12-1123, subsection B, shall be payable as follows:

1. If instituted by a city or town, at the rate prescribed by section 9-409.

2. If instituted by a county, at the rate prescribed by section 11-269.04.

3. If instituted by the department of transportation, at the rate prescribed by section 28-7101.

4. If instituted by a county flood control district, a power district or an agricultural improvement district, at the rate prescribed by section 48-3628.

D. A court shall not award either of the following:

1. Prejudgment interest for any unliquidated damages, future damages, punitive damages or exemplary damages that are found by the trier of fact.

2. Interest for any future damages, punitive damages or exemplary damages that are found by the trier of fact.

E. For the purposes of subsection D of this section, "future damages" means damages that will be incurred after the date of the judgment and includes the costs of any injunctive or equitable relief that will be provided after the date of the judgment.

F. If awarded, prejudgment interest shall be at the rate described in subsection A or B of this section.

G. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Health care services" means services provided at or by any of the following:

(a) Health care institutions as defined in section 36-401.

(b) Private offices or clinics of health care providers licensed under title 32, chapters 7, 11, 13, 15, 15.1, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19.1, 25, 28, 33, 34, or 35.

(c) Ambulances or ambulance services as defined in section 36-2201.

2. "Medical debt" means a loan, indebtedness or other obligation arising directly from the receipt of health care services or of medical products or devices.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 131 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc., 329 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc., 329 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. 2014). · cites it 29× “Citing a 2011 amendment to A.R.S. § 44-1201, BCI argued that the applicable rate was instead 1% per annum plus the prime rate, or 4.”
Minjares v. State, 219 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 22× “Accordingly, we uphold the superior court's interpretation of the statute and its conclusion that the statute applied to these circumstances and required correction of the judgment to provide for the treasury bill-based interest rate during the pendency of the appeal. [6] ¶ 42…”
State ex rel. Arizona Structural Pest Control Comm'n v. Taylor, 224 P.3d 983 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 36× “1971) (prejudgment interest accrues on liquidated contract claim pursuant to AR.S. § 44-1201). ¶ 7 Issues of statutory interpretation are purely legal, and we review them de novo.”
Arizona State Univ. Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 396 P.3d 623 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 16× “The superior court held that the refund was in the nature of a “judgment,” and not a “debt”—a distinction that determines the applicable interest rate under AR.S. § 44-1201. We disagree, and hold that ASRS’s over-collection of money created a debt that was not dependent on the…”
In Re Marriage of Berger, 680 P.2d 1217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 44-1201 provides: § 44-1201. Rate of Interest for loan or indebtedness; interest on judgments A.”
Flood Control Dist. v. Paloma Inv. Ltd. P'ship, 350 P.3d 826 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 24× “After apportioning sanctions, the superior court found that “A.R.S. § 44-1201[ (B) ] controls and that the proper rate of interest to be accumulated on the Amended Judgment entered on November 18, 2009, continues to be interest at the rate of ten (10%) per cent per annum until…”
Charles W. Stenz v. City of Tucson & Pinnacle Risk Mgmt. Servs., 336 P.3d 737 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 22× “¶8 Our supreme court concluded that a workers’ compensation claimant is owed interest under the general interest statute, A.R.S. § 44-1201, on benefits not timely paid.”
Wieman v. Roysden, 802 P.2d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 15× “Nevertheless, Wieman argues that the Arbuckles do not have a usury defense because the legislature’s 1980 amendment to § 44-1201 simply “did away with the common law defense of usury.”
Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (D. Ariz. 2005). · cites it 7× “1 They also for *1091 the first time argued that the Court should award them interest at the statutory rate of 10% on any unpaid liquidated amounts pursuant to Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1201. The Court, in its discretion, decided to hear these arguments and on September 29, 2004…”
Dki corp./sylvan Pools v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 845 P.2d 461 (Ariz. 1993). · cites it 14× “On review, we held that A.R.S. § 44-1201(A), providing for interest on any “indebtedness .”
Imperial Litho/Graphics v. M.J. Enter., 730 P.2d 245 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “It *74 further asserts that A.R.S. § 44-1201 supports this contention in that it provides: Interest on any .”
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 310 P.3d 9 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 30× “BCI objected, asserting that under the recently amended version of § 44-1201, the interest rate should have been calculated at the rate of one percent per annum plus the prime rate or 4.”
Show all 131 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1201(A) — 48 cases
Minjares v. State, 219 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “Accordingly, we uphold the superior court's interpretation of the statute and its conclusion that the statute applied to these circumstances and required correction of the judgment to provide for the treasury bill-based interest rate during the pendency of the appeal. [6] ¶ 42…”
Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc., 329 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. 2014). “Citing a 2011 amendment to A.R.S. § 44-1201, BCI argued that the applicable rate was instead 1% per annum plus the prime rate, or 4.”
Arizona State Univ. Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 396 P.3d 623 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “The superior court held that the refund was in the nature of a “judgment,” and not a “debt”—a distinction that determines the applicable interest rate under AR.S. § 44-1201. We disagree, and hold that ASRS’s over-collection of money created a debt that was not dependent on the…”
Dki corp./sylvan Pools v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 845 P.2d 461 (Ariz. 1993). “On review, we held that A.R.S. § 44-1201(A), providing for interest on any “indebtedness .”
Wieman v. Roysden, 802 P.2d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “Nevertheless, Wieman argues that the Arbuckles do not have a usury defense because the legislature’s 1980 amendment to § 44-1201 simply “did away with the common law defense of usury.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1201(A)(2) — 3 cases
Custom Acct. v. Sal E. Mander (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Ammo A-Z LLC v. Zenith Firearms Inc. (D. Ariz. 2025).
United Hauling LLC v. Iron Rings Holdings LLC, et al. (D. Ariz. 2026).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1201(B) — 31 cases
Flood Control Dist. v. Paloma Inv. Ltd. P'ship, 350 P.3d 826 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “After apportioning sanctions, the superior court found that “A.R.S. § 44-1201[ (B) ] controls and that the proper rate of interest to be accumulated on the Amended Judgment entered on November 18, 2009, continues to be interest at the rate of ten (10%) per cent per annum until…”
Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc., 329 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. 2014). “Citing a 2011 amendment to A.R.S. § 44-1201, BCI argued that the applicable rate was instead 1% per annum plus the prime rate, or 4.”
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona, 423 P.3d 993 (Ariz. 2018).
Wieman v. Roysden, 802 P.2d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “Nevertheless, Wieman argues that the Arbuckles do not have a usury defense because the legislature’s 1980 amendment to § 44-1201 simply “did away with the common law defense of usury.”
Dos Picos Land Ltd. P'ship v. Pima Cnty., 240 P.3d 853 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1201(C) — 1 case
Catalina Foothills Unified Sch. Dist. No. 16 v. La Paloma Prop. Owners Ass'n, 363 P.3d 127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1201(D) — 2 cases
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 310 P.3d 9 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “BCI objected, asserting that under the recently amended version of § 44-1201, the interest rate should have been calculated at the rate of one percent per annum plus the prime rate or 4.”
Connell v. Connell, III (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1201(D)(1) — 6 cases
Arizona State Univ. Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 396 P.3d 623 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “The superior court held that the refund was in the nature of a “judgment,” and not a “debt”—a distinction that determines the applicable interest rate under AR.S. § 44-1201. We disagree, and hold that ASRS’s over-collection of money created a debt that was not dependent on the…”
Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc., 329 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. 2014). “Citing a 2011 amendment to A.R.S. § 44-1201, BCI argued that the applicable rate was instead 1% per annum plus the prime rate, or 4.”
Sirrah Enter., LLC v. Wunderlich, 377 P.3d 360 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Gipson v. Shinnink (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
Connell v. Connell, III (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1201(F) — 5 cases
Hall v. Elected Officials' Ret. Plan, 383 P.3d 1107 (Ariz. 2016).
Catalina Foothills Unified Sch. Dist. No. 16 v. La Paloma Prop. Owners Ass'n, 363 P.3d 127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Design Trend Int'l Interiors, Ltd. v. Cathay Enter., Inc., 103 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (D. Ariz. 2015).
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 310 P.3d 9 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “BCI objected, asserting that under the recently amended version of § 44-1201, the interest rate should have been calculated at the rate of one percent per annum plus the prime rate or 4.”
Martinez v. Martinez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
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.