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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-144 (2026)

Effect of assignment of chose in action upon defenses existing at time of assignment; exceptions

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

An assignment of a chose in action shall not prejudice any set-off or other defense existing at the time of the notice of the assignment. This section shall not apply to a negotiable promissory note or bill of exchange, transferred in good faith and upon good consideration before due except as provided in section 44-145.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1968–2018 · leading case: Certified Collectors, Inc. v. Lesnick, 570 P.2d 769 (Ariz. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Certified Collectors, Inc. v. Lesnick, 570 P.2d 769 (Ariz. 1977). · cites it 2× “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-144, provides in relevant part: “Effect of assignment of chose in action upon defenses existing at time of assignment; exceptions “An assignment of a chose in action shall not prejudice any set-off or other defense existing at the time of the notice of the…”
Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Little, 443 P.2d 690 (Ariz. 1968). · cites it 2× “Nor is the fact that the assignment is given as collateral security on the original tort judgment, if such be the case, of any consequence to General, for payment to the assignee of any judgment rendered in this cause will completely discharge General of further obligation and…”
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Udall, 424 P.3d 420 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “to all defenses it may have to the loss or claim"); A.R.S. § 44-144 ("An assignment of a chose in action shall not prejudice any set-off or other defense existing at the time of the notice of the assignment.”
Est. of DeSela v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 228 P.3d 938 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “10 *206 ¶ 14 Defendants’ argument also ignores A.R.S. § 44-144 (2003), which provides: An assignment of a chose in action shall not prejudice any set-off or other defense existing at the time of the notice of the assignment.”
State v. Direct Sellers Ass'n, 494 P.2d 361 (Ariz. 1972). · cites it 2× “In any event, this subsection has since been modified and clarified by A.R.S. §§ 44-144 and 44 — 145 and arguments about it are now moot.”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Thunderbird Bank, 542 P.2d 39 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “Should the bank complain that it had to pay A $175,000, as compared to B who was owed the money, especially when all the defenses it has against B are available against A? See A.R.S. § 44-144. Insofar as the bank is concerned, it reaps a windfall because B had the foresight to…”
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.