Arizona Supreme Court holds that a facially valid but forged deed can trigger the five-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-524.

In 1995, a plaintiff obtained title to a lot in Maricopa County. A warranty deed conveying the property to the defendant was executed, notarized, and recorded in 2003.

Sixteen years after the deed was recorded, the plaintiff discovered the deed and sued the defendant to quiet title, claiming defendant forged the deed. The plaintiff also recorded a lis pendens. The defendant filed a separate quiet-title action against plaintiff, claiming the lis pendens was fraudulent. The superior court consolidated the cases and granted the defendant’s motions for summary judgment on all claims.

The central issue was whether a forged deed is a “recorded deed” under A.R.S. § 12-524 for statute-of-limitations purposes. A.R.S. § 12–524 provides a five-year statute of limitations for quiet-title actions “to recover a lot located in a city or town from a person having a recorded deed therefor, who claims ownership and has paid the taxes thereon.” The superior court concluded that that the five-year statute of limitations barred the plaintiff’s quiet-title claim because the defendant had a “recorded deed,” even if it was forged. The court of appeals affirmed.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Court held that a “recorded deed” under § 12-524 includes any deed that is facially valid, even if forged. The Court emphasized that § 12-524 is designed to confer title through compliance with the statute—not through the legal effect of the deed itself. A recorded deed provides notice of an adverse claim, and when coupled with tax payments and a claim of ownership, may bar future challenges under A.R.S. § 12-527.

The Court found the plaintiff had adequately preserved arguments for equitable tolling and application of the discovery rule; however, those issues, which could render her claims timely, were not addressed by the lower courts. The Court remanded for further proceedings on those issues.

Chief Justice Timmer authored the opinion, which Justices Bolick and King, and Judge Gard joined. Vice Chief Justice Lopez and Justices Beene and Montgomery concurred.

Posted by: Allie Karpurk