Maricopa county property lien records

Common public record requests include parcel information and maps; property valuation and tax records; property-tax payment information; property ownership histories; tax information for cities, towns and special districts. Common public record requests include copies of lawsuits and litigation; case status reports; police and investigative reports; personnel files; litigation spending records; legal opinions.

Return to Search Results What The Agency Does Common public record requests include tax records; copies of deeds; death certificate forms; property use records; property transfer documents; ownership records; liens; Uniform Commercial Code filings; voter registration figures; voting records for candidates; military discharge information from family members for estate issues.

Note: There is no email address for the custodian of records. Category County. Keywords taxes deed death certificate birth certificate voting military discharge tax record property use voter registration. Contact Information. Get records on agency's site. The letter listed the amounts the CP holder had paid and stated: "This statement shows the amount due and payable in order to redeem your property. To remove these tax liens, please return this statement with your payment On appeal, he argues he made his payment "under protest," and our record contains a one-page screenshot of a document from the County Treasurer's Office dated March 30, , that states, "paid under protest for 10 yr exp.

There was no response to Span's filing, and the superior court made no further rulings in the matter. Span alleged that the lien had expired before the CP holder filed for foreclosure and that the County had improperly required him to redeem the expired lien.

  1. find peugeot306 estate used cars for sale;
  2. ware county georgia government property records?
  3. Free Arizona Quit Claim Deed Form - Word | PDF | eForms – Free Fillable Forms.
  4. Property Tax | City of Avondale.
  5. henrico county va property records.

He alleged breaches of contract and fiduciary duty, negligence, violation of statutory and constitutional rights, and unjust enrichment. On appeal, this court reversed, holding the lien had expired by statute in , as Span had argued. Span v.

Ready to Get Started with Phoenix, AZ’s Premier Foreclosure Assistance Firm?

The court also concluded, however, that Span had waived any challenge to the dismissal of his claims against the individual defendants by failing to raise that ruling on appeal. The County pointed out that it did not possess Span's redemption payment, having forwarded it to the CP holder.

The County further argued the CP holder had given Span 30 days' notice of the foreclosure action so that he could have challenged the validity of the lien in that matter before he paid to redeem it. Span, meanwhile, sought summary judgment that the Treasurer was still a party to the case. Maricopa County , 18 Ariz.

What The Agency Does

Span timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A. On appeal from entry of summary judgment, we review questions of law de novo and consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Maricopa County Property Taxes

Lennar Corp. Transamerica Ins. See 18 Ariz. But Span's unjust enrichment claim is based at least in part on actions by the County—its receipt of and failure to return money that Span argues belongs to him—and not solely on the actions of a County employee or official. Because Span's claim includes allegations that are not based solely on vicarious liability or respondeat superior , Fridena does not dispose of the claim. Underlying Span's claim was A.

Span's complaint alleged that by , the lien the CP holder purchased on his property in had expired and "became invalid" because the CP holder did not commence foreclosure within ten years. As recounted above, the Treasurer sent a form letter to Span after the CP holder filed the foreclosure action to inform him of the tax payments the CP holder had made on his property.

But the Treasurer only informed Span of the amount he would have to pay if he chose to redeem the lien; the letter did not threaten to take any action or impose any consequence against Span if he decided not to pay. By Span's account, he paid the money to the County "under protest" because the CP holder's foreclosure action was time-barred. But on summary judgment, he offered no evidence to show the Treasurer did anything to compel him to make the payment, "under protest" or otherwise.

And his assertion to the contrary belies logic: Whether Span would decide to redeem the lien was a matter entirely between him and the CP holder. Once the CP holder had paid the taxes on the property, it was irrelevant to the County whether Span chose to redeem. Moreover, Span does not dispute that, after accepting his redemption payment, the County immediately forwarded the money to the CP holder.

See A. The County argued the year period of repose was tolled when the holder of the lien paid property taxes "subtaxes" imposed on the property in subsequent years because, by statute, the subtaxes had been added to the original certificate of purchase. The County argued that because the CP holder paid taxes due on Span's property for , and , making the last payment for tax year on June 11, , the lien "did not become eligible for expiration After issuance of that decision, the legislature amended the tax lien and foreclosure statutes so that payment of a subtax by the holder of a certificate of purchase in Maricopa County will give rise to a separate new lien for that year's taxes that will be subject to its own year period of repose.

The legislation directed that, beginning in calendar year , when the holder of a certificate of purchase for tax year and afterward in a county of more than 3,, pays taxes due on the property in subsequent years, the treasurer must issue a separate certificate of purchase for each subsequent year's taxes. Laws, ch. The legislation further provided that each such certificate of purchase for a subsequent year's taxes is subject to its own ten-year repose period that commences upon its issuance. Span could have challenged the validity of the lien by seeking to enjoin the foreclosure on that ground.

A ruling in his favor would have returned the property to him free and clear of the tax lien absent any redemption obligation. That result would have been a windfall to Span — he would have retained the property without having paid the taxes, and the CP holder, which had paid the taxes on the property, would have had no further recourse. But Span did not challenge the foreclosure action, and we are unpersuaded that he is entitled to obtain that windfall at the expense of the County by claiming unjust enrichment. Wang Elec. Pension Planning , Ariz.

Pearson , Ariz.

​Abatement Lien Program

The factual predicate of an unjust enrichment claim is that someone been "unjustly enriched. Restitutionary relief is allowable only when it would be inequitable or unjust for defendant to retain the benefit without compensating plaintiff. Pyeatte , Ariz. The County did not keep Span's payment, but instead forwarded the money to the CP holder, which had paid the taxes on Span's property in the first instance.

When the County delivered Span's payment to the CP holder, it did so under color of law because it understood the tax lien remained valid due to the CP holder's payments of subtaxes on the property. Span cites no authority to support his contention that a party that forwards a payment to another under color of law, as the County did here, may be liable on a claim to recoup such a payment under unjust enrichment. We agree that a party who unjustly obtains an asset cannot avoid an unjust enrichment claim by simply gifting the asset to someone else.

But that is not what happened here. After Span chose to pay the redemption amount, the County paid it over to the CP holder because the County understood the law required it to do so. The dissent contends the County Treasurer knew at the time of the foreclosure action that a tax lien expires after 10 years. There is no dispute about that general proposition; the dispute was whether the year repose period would be tolled when, after purchasing a lien, a CP holder paid other taxes as they came due on the property in subsequent years.

The dissent cites a fragment of a web posting that Span submitted on summary judgment, but that evidence hardly supports the dubious proposition that the County knew its position on that issue was contrary to law. Labeled "Page 4 of 4," the posting does not address the "subtax" issue on which the County's legal argument turned. The Restatement explains that whether unjust enrichment has occurred must be considered in such a case "in the context of the parties' further obligations to each other" and "in view of the larger transactional context within which the benefit has been conferred.

Consistent with this principle, under Arizona law, a time-barred debt is unenforceable but not extinguished. Schwertner , 15 Ariz. This principle was applied in Clifton Manufacturing Co. United States , 76 F. The taxpayer alleged it had executed a waiver consenting to the taxes under the mistaken impression that the statutory period of limitations had not expired. The taxpayer argued he was entitled to a refund because the Internal Revenue Service had induced the waiver, but on appeal, the court noted that, as here, the government at the time was "under the belief that an assessment and collection of the tax could still legally be made.

The court affirmed judgment against the taxpayer:. The real question In our opinion, the answer should be in the negative. It is of great significance that the taxpayer was in truth indebted to the United States for taxes in the amount which it paid Thus the situation differs widely from the decided cases in which a failure to rescind a transaction would have entailed an unjust enrichment of the party against whom relief was sought. Edwin J.

Schoettle Co.

What survives a Trustee Sale? – AZREIA

Unlike the claimants in these federal cases, Span is not a taxpayer seeking a refund; the CP holder, of course, had paid the taxes due on the property. But the underlying principle —unjust enrichment requires consideration of the overall context of the transaction—applies here just as in those cases. But that fact only helps doom his unjust enrichment claim.

  1. Collins v. Stockwell?
  2. dui assessment duplin county north carolina;
  3. About the Maricopa County Recorder of Deeds?

Span was on notice of the foreclosure action and was a named defendant in that matter. He also knew that the County disagreed with his contention that the tax lien was void. On summary judgment, he averred that the County told him to make the redemption payment "under protest and take it to court.