Eviction lawsuits are designed to address the issue of possession and not ownership. Eviction lawsuits are to provide 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 tenants were permitted to deny the landlord’s title, or to interpose customary and usual defenses permissible in the ordinary action at law.
The merits of the title may not be inquired into in eviction actions, otherwise the action would not afford a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of the rental property. The limited scope of eviction cases is strictly defined by A.R.S. § 22-201(D) which states;
Justice Court Judges, “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)
Landlord Frustration
Often, when an eviction case is transferred from the Justice Court to the Superior Court, a landlord will respond, “But my tenant doesn’t own the property! It’s mine! They’re just lying! Why does the judge believe them?”
While a landlords’ frustration is understandable, it is important to remember that the Justice Court Judge is just following the law, it does not mean they believe the tenant. Additionally, it does not mean that the tenant did something right or that we made some kind of a mistake. It simply means the Judge is following the law.
If you need help from an experienced Arizona attorney, 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.
What is the Difference between an Eviction Hearing and Eviction Trial?
Every eviction in Arizona requires an Eviction hearing but occasionally the case will be set for trial. At an Eviction hearing the landlord’s attorney appears and shows a judge the necessary paperwork to receive a judgment. For good cause shown the judge may set the matter for trial.
Why Would a Judge Set it for a Trial?
Under certain circumstances the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act requires that an eviction case be set for a trial. An eviction case will be set for trial if; the tenant appears and makes a legal defense to the attorney’s claims. Depending on how strict a judge interprets this statute, the hearing may be stopped the moment a tenant presents a legal defense and set for trial. Other judges will allow the landlord’s attorney and the tenant an opportunity to present their best arguments for a moment before dismissing the case or setting it for trial. However, most judges will not listen to any testimony or view evidence at the initial hearing and just set it for trial.
Rule 11(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for Eviction Actions states that “The court may order the continuance of a trial date by up to three court days in justice court or ten days in superior court on the request of a party for good cause shown or to accommodate the demands of the court’s calendar… No continuance of more than three court days in justice courts or ten days in superior courts may be ordered unless both parties are in agreement”.
What Can I Expect at an Eviction Trial?
Eviction trials can last from 30 minutes to several hours. At trial both parties are given the opportunity to make brief introductory statements. Landlords and tenants may introduce evidence and question witnesses. Typical evidence is; pictures, text messages, lease agreements, and emails. Eviction trials can last for several hours.
In Arizona, all eviction cases–whether in the justice court or superior court–are controlled by the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions. If a Plaintiff-landlord wishes to have a trial by jury then it can be requested. Under Rule 11(d) of the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions-
“Trial Settings. Contested detainer matters shall be set for a trial by a judge alone unless a jury trial is demanded by the plaintiff in the complaint or by the defendant at or before the initial appearance. Failure to request a jury trial at or before the initial appearance shall be deemed a waiver of that party’s right to a jury trial. At the initial appearance, if a jury trial has been demanded, the court shall inquire and determine the factual issues to be determined by the jury. If no factual issues exist for the jury to determine, the matter shall proceed to a trial by the judge alone regarding any legal issues or may disposed of by motion or in accordance with these rules, as appropriate.”
Rule 12(a) of the Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions provide us with the necessary steps for having a jury trial. The court will permit seven jurors in the justice court and 9 jurors in the superior court.
1. What happens at the initial hearing?
Eviction hearings are bunched into tight blocks of time. It is not uncommon for 30 eviction hearings to be scheduled in a 60 minute block! During these hearings, the courtroom is packed with attorneys, landlords, tenants, and crying babies. Thus, Judges are under necessity to move through each case as quickly as possible. Additionally, the hearings move swiftly because often the defendants (tenants) don’t appear at their hearing.
This short period of time does not allow for testimony, opening and closing statements, or review evidence. So just because the case was set for trial it does not mean that the opposing party did something right or that we did anything wrong.
2. Why would a judge set a case for trial?
If a tenant appears at the hearing and denies the allegations contained in the Complaint, the Judge may set the matter for trial.
If the original eviction Complaint was filed for failure to pay rent a tenant might appear and too the judge that they are actually current on their rent. As mentioned above, the Judge does not have time during this block of time to hear either parties’ argument, and he or she will set it for trial.
Another example is in the case that the Complaint was filed for breach of the lease agreement. For instance, if the signed lease agreement states that only two people may occupy the property. If the property owner finds out that there are 22 people living in the house he or she may file for an eviction based on the fact that the Tenants had more than the allowed number of occupants in the home; which is a breach of the original signed agreement. However, the Defendant (tenant) may appear and claim that the people in the house are just visiting. In this case the matter would be set for trial.
If you need help from an experienced Arizona attorney, 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.
An eviction Complaint, Summons, 6-month payment history, lease, residential eviction explanation sheet and proposed form of judgment are prepared by our Firm and filed with the corresponding court.
Once the pleadings have been filed with the court, they must be served on the tenants by a licensed process server.
3. Eviction Hearing
Every eviction case has a hearing. One of our attorneys will appear at the hearing on your behalf so you do not have to take time out of your schedule to come to one of the justice court, courthouse.
Eviction Trial– Occasionally, an eviction case will be set for trial. An eviction trial is completely different than an eviction hearing. Click HERE to read more about eviction trials.
4. Eviction Judgment
An Eviction Judgment is the goal of an eviction hearing. An Arizona eviction judgment is made up of two basic components.
Monetary Award– The monetary portion of the judgment, orders the tenants to pay the landlord all back rent, late fees, court costs, and attorney’s fees.
Vacate the Property– The second part of the eviction judgment orders the tenants to vacate the rental property within 5 calendar days. If the Arizona tenants do not voluntarily vacate within that time, then you must file a Writ of Restitution. This writ orders the court constable to go to the rental property and remove the renters, by force if necessary.
5. Writ of Restitution
A Writ of Restitution is filed with the Court if the tenant fails to vacate the Arizona rental property within 5 calendar days of us obtaining the eviction judgment.
Filing Fee- As of 2023 the filing fee for the Writ of Restitution in the Maricopa County justice court system is $115. Also, in cases where the rental property is rural and far from the court then the constable may charge an additional travel fee.
Tenant’s Belongings– If a tenant vacates but leaves behind their belongings then the landlord must store the tenant’s belongings for 14-days.
An Arizona landlord can charge a tenant the actual cost of moving their belongings and the actual cost of storing their belongings. However, the landlord cannot hold a tenant’s belongings hostage demanding that the eviction judgment is paid until the belongings will be released. Again, if an Arizona tenant reimburses the landlord for the actual cost of moving and storing the belongings then they must be returned.
If you have additional questions about the Arizona eviction process then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-389-6529 or 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.
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)
Occasionally, when a case is sent to the Superior Court an Arizona landlord will respond, “but my tenant doesn’t own the property! It’s mine! They’re just lying! Why is the judge believing them? What could have been done to prevent this?”
While a landlords’ frustration is understandable it’s important to remember that the Justice Court judge is just following the law. Just because a Justice Court Judge moves a case into the Arizona Superior Court system does not mean they believe the tenant. Additionally, it does not mean that the tenant did something right or that we made some kind of a mistake. It simply means the Judge is following the law.
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.
Often, Arizona tenants will leave personal property on the premises after they have been evicted. As a landlord you cannot simply keep or throw away the former tenant’s belongings. The Arizona Landlord-Tenant Act requires the landlord to you maintain their possessions for at least 14 days.
Per A.R.S. § 33-1368(E) a landlord, must hold the evicted tenant’s possessions for a minimum of 14 days from the day the Writ of Restitution was executed (day the constable removed the tenants) issued.
As A landlord, you may
Keep the tenant’s belongings that the rental property for the 14 days,
Move the tenant’s belongings to an off-site storage facility,
Require the tenant to reimburse you for the actual cost of moving and storing their belongings during the 14-day period,
Prohibit the tenants from ever returning to the property without your explicit permission.
As a landlord you may NOT
Arizona landlords cannot require their former tenant pay for eviction judgment prior to releasing the belongings to them. Meaning you cannot require a tenant pay you for all back rent, late fees, attorneys’ fees, and court costs prior to returning their belongings. Again, an Arizona landlord may only demand payment for the actual cost of storing and moving the tenants’ belongings.
Dispose of the tenant’s property prior to the expiration of the 14 days.
catalogue the tenants’ belongings
You should itemize everything left behind by the tenants. If you do choose to remove the tenant’s belongings from the rental property, use considerable care, you will be responsible for any damage to their belongings. It is a good idea to photograph (take 100 – 200 pictures), and/or video the rental property so that you have an inventory of what was left behind. This will also give you the opportunity to catalog any damage to the rental unit itself. Take the inventory prior to moving any of the personal property from the rental unit.
After the 14-day period, if there has been no contact from the evicted party, and they have not claimed, or made and agreement to claim their property, an Arizona landlord may sell the items or dispose of the items that were left behind.
If you need help from an Arizona eviction attorney, then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-702-1608 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. The Dunaway Law Group limits its practice to the State of Arizona.
