Once a shared well agreement has been completed and filed with the county recorder, it is time to provide a copy to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. *If you have not done so already, click HERE to learn about recording your shared well agreement with the county recorder.
how to provide the adwr your shared well agreement
Cover Letter: It is best practice to include a cover letter when submitting your shared well agreement to the ADWR.
Filing Fee: $0. There is not a filing fee to record your shared well agreement with the ADWR.
Mailing Address: Arizona Department of Water Resources 1110 W. Washington St., Suite 310 Phoenix, AZ 85007
If you need help from an experienced shared well attorney, then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-702-1608 or message us HERE.
The Dunaway Law Group provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking advice from professional advisers. The Firm limits its practice to the states of Arizona and New York.
Arizona law is clear that eviction cases are designed to address the issue of possession and not the issue of property ownership. The limited scope of a forcible entry and detainer action has been strictly defined by Arizona statute. A.R.S. § 12-1177(A) states in relevant part:
On the trial of an action of Forcible Entry or Forcible Detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.
Evidence offered to the Arizona Superior Court showing anything other than who is entitled to possess the property will be excluded from an eviction hearing. This means that a defendant-tenant who claims ownership of the rental property must file a quiet title action and not raise the issue during an eviction hearing.
Proof of property Ownership
The Arizona Superior Court’s inquiry into property ownership is limited to the extent that Plaintiff holds title to the property in dispute. If the Plaintiff – Arizona Landlord’s name appears on the trustee’s deed then the Court should not inquire into ownership any further.
The issuance of the Trustee’s Deed to Plaintiff is conclusive evidence that all statutory requirements for the Trustee’s Sale were satisfied and that Plaintiff has the right to possession of the Property.
…the Trustee’s deed shall raise the presumption of compliance with the requirements of this chapter relating to the exercise of the power of sale and the sale of the trust property, including recording, mailing, publishing, and posting of the notice of sale and the conduct of the sale.
eviction cases are summary remedies
Arizona courts have held that litigation as to the validity of title “would convert a forcible detainer action into a quiet title action and defeat its purpose as a summary remedy.” Curtis v. Morris, 186 Ariz. 534, 535, 925 P.2d 259, 260 (1996).
For example, in Merrifield v. Merrifield, 95 Ariz. 152, 154, 388 P.2d 153, 155 (1963), the plaintiff held title to property pursuant to quitclaim deed which was valid on its face. The lower court nonetheless inquired into the merits of that title and refused to find the defendant guilty of forcible entry and detainer. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling because plaintiff was entitled to possession as the title holder and pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1177, the trial court was prohibited from considering the merits of the plaintiff’s title. Accordingly, any evidence offered by Defendants to raise extrinsic issues or disprove Plaintiff’s title must be excluded.
In another case demonstrating the Superior Courts inability to inquire into ownership in a forcible detainer (see Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. Rushing, 64 Ariz. 199, 167 P.2d 394 (1946), the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “[T]he statutes of this state make that very plain and indicate quite clearly that the right to actual possession is the only issue to be determined in such an action.” Id. at 204, 397. The court also discussed the legislative intent in limiting the scope of a forcible entry and detainer action stating:
The object of a forcible entry and detainer action is to afford a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of premises withheld by tenants, and for this reason this objective would be entirely frustrated if the defendant were permitted to deny his landlord’s title, or to interpose customary and usual defenses permissible in the ordinary action at law. And for the same reason, the merits of the title may not be inquired into in such an action, for if the merits of the title and other defenses above enumerated were permitted and the court heard testimony concerning them, then other and secondary issues would be presented to the court and the action would not afford a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of the premises.
Id. at 204-05, 397. Because the trustee’s deed is conclusive evidence of Plaintiff’s title under A.R.S. § 33-811(B), and because the court is prohibited from inquiring into the merits of that title under A.R.S. § 12-1177(A), judgment must be rendered in favor of Plaintiff regardless of any defense of ownership the Defendants may raise.
Ownership Disputes in the Justice Court
The ownership of property and their interaction with evictions can become very complex. The above article discusses issues of ownership disputes and evictions in the Superior Court, however, the rules that apply to ownership disputes and evictions in the Justice Court (where most evictions take place) are completely different.
A.R.S. § 22-201(D) addresses this issue:
Justices of the peace have jurisdiction to try the right to possession of real property when title or ownership is not a subject of inquiry in the action. If in any such action the title or ownership of real property becomes an issue, the justice shall so certify in the court record, at once stop further proceedings in the action and forward all papers together with a certified copy of the court record in the action to the Superior Court, where the action shall be docketed and determined as though originally brought in the Superior Court.
A.R.S. § 22-201(D)
A.R.S. § 22-201(F) adds further clarification:
In actions between landlord and tenant for possession of leased premises, the title to the property leased shall not be raised nor made an issue.
A.R.S. § 22-201(F)
For help with your Arizona landlord – tenant matters contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-389-6529 or message us HERE.
* The information provided is informational only, does not constitute legal advice, and will not create an attorney-client or attorney-prospective client relationship. Additionally, the Dunaway Law Group, PLC limits its practice to the State of Arizona.
A motion in limine is a pleading filed with the court where on party is asking the judge to prevent certain pieces of evidence from being used during a trial.
The phrase, in limine is a Latin phrase that means “at the threshold”. Hence if granted a Motion in limine will stop certain evidence “at the threshold” or prevented from even being let “in the door”.
In Arizona, these Motions must typically be filed by a certain date established at an earlier time by the court. For instance, the judge may say, “all Motions in limine” must be filed by this certain date or you may not raise the argument at a later date.
What are the Factors Determined by the Judge?
Historically three elements must be met before a judge will grant the Motion in limine.
When the evidence is not relevant to any of the issues at dispute in the current case.
When evidence is extremely prejudicial to one party without helping the jury decide on the case in front of them.
When admitting the evidence would violate a state or federal law or the rules of evidence.
If you need help from an Arizona real estate attorney then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-702-1608 or send us a message HERE.
Who Must Complete the Initial Credit Counseling Course?
Everyone filing for bankruptcy must complete a pre and post-filing, credit counseling course. This is true whether filing for a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Additionally, if married, both spouses must complete the credit counseling courses. If you do not take the class prior to filing the bankruptcy your case will be dismissed.
How is the credit counseling class completed?
The Credit Counseling Courses are completed online. The classes are $20 and completed in about 90 minutes.
After completing the credit counseling course the company will generate a certificate as proof of you having taken the course. This certificate will be filed along with your Petition and Schedules.
When does the credit counseling class need to be completed?
The credit counseling course must be completed BEFORE the bankruptcy is filed, however, it cannot be completed more than a 180-days before the bankruptcy is filed.
2nd Bankruptcy Class- After Your Bankruptcy is Filed
Everyone filing bankruptcy must complete a second bankruptcy education course known as the “Debtor Education Course“. The second course is taken after the bankruptcy is filed and preferably before the 341 hearing.
What is Learned from the Debtor Education Course?
The idea behind the Debtor Education Course is for bankruptcy filers to learn new techniques for handling their finances after your bankruptcy has been closed.
Where Can I Take the Debtor Education Course?
The Debtor Education Course can be completed by using any company that provides the service. The Bankruptcy court does not require you to use one company versus another and they do not endorse any particular company. Additionally, the Debtor Education Course can be completed online or by telephone.
If you have questions about whether bankruptcy can benefit you, then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-702-1608 or message us HERE.
* The information provided is informational only, does not constitute legal advice, and will not create an attorney-client or attorney-prospective client relationship. Additionally, the Dunaway Law Group, PLC limits its practice to the State of Arizona.
Partitioning Arizona real estate is a way to resolve a situation where two people who own real estate together but disagree about whether to sell the property and or how to manage it. I typically see this scenario where a boyfriend-girlfriend purchased a home together and then later have a falling-out.
In this situation they are both equal owners, so can one of the parties force the other to sell even if they don’t want to? Yes! There is an Arizona Statute that specifically addresses what to do in these situations.
A.
The owner or claimant of real property or any interest therein may
compel a partition of the property between him and the owners or
claimants by filing a complaint in the superior court of the county in
which the property, or a portion thereof, is situated.
B. The complaint shall state: (1) The names and residences, if known, of each of the owners or claimants. (2) The share or interest which plaintiff and the owners or claimants own or claim, so far as known to plaintiff. (3) A description of the real property to identify it and its estimated value.
A.R.S. 12-1211
Once the Arizona real estate is sold the net proceeds will be distributed between the owners. If you need an Arizona real estate attorney then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-389-6529 or message us HERE.
These blog posts are not intended nor shall they be deemed to be the rendering of legal advice. Reading these blog posts does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor shall it impose an obligation on the part of the attorney to respond to further inquiry.