A. All parties to a joint obligation, including negotiable paper and partnership debts, shall be severally liable also for the full amount of such obligations. An action may be brought against such parties jointly or separately, joining one or more, and judgment may be given in each such action without barring an action against any party to the obligation not included in the judgment, and without releasing any party against whom the action was not brought.
B. The court may, upon its own motion or upon the application of any interested party, require that the plaintiff bring in as defendants all parties jointly liable on the obligation upon which the action is brought, in which event any subsequent judgment shall be for the amount unsatisfied.
Notes of Decisions
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta, 880 P.2d 1109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “2d 574 (1990); see also A.R.S. § 44-141(A). [9] The supreme court rejected a similar argument in Catalina Mortgage; citing A.”
Catalina Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Monier, 800 P.2d 574 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 8× “ed thereon jointly or separately joining one [1] or more, and judgment may be rendered in each, without barring an action against any of those not included in such judgment, or releasing any of those not sued; the court, may, however, require the plaintiff to bring in as…”
Cahn v. Fisher, 805 P.2d 1040 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-141. Therefore, an action on a joint obligation can proceed against the parties either jointly or separately.”
Faber v. Althoff, 812 P.2d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-141(A) (emphasis added); see also Catalina Mortgage, supra.”
Aritex Land Co. v. Baker, 482 P.2d 875 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “However, A.R.S. § 44-141 negates this contention : “A.”
Mosley v. Trans Rent-A-Car, Inc., 650 P.2d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-141. A judgment against one does not terminate the claim against the other or others.”
Resource Recovery Corp. v. Inductance Energy Corp. (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “1 The language of the aforementioned cases, considered in conjunction with the 2| language of A.R.S. § 44-141, suggest that this Court can apply joint and several liability 3 | to the contract in this case.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-141(A) — 2 cases
Chase Bank of Arizona v. Acosta, 880 P.2d 1109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
“2d 574 (1990); see also A.R.S. § 44-141(A). [9] The supreme court rejected a similar argument in Catalina Mortgage; citing A.”
Faber v. Althoff, 812 P.2d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“A.R.S. § 44-141(A) (emphasis added); see also Catalina Mortgage, supra.”
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.