Arizona lawAccounting

Security Deposit Return in Arizona

September 27, 2026 · LawDiver Research Team

The cap is 1.5 months' rent. The return deadline is 14 days after termination and delivery of possession, with itemized deductions. Interest: No statewide interest requirement. That is what separates Arizona getting a security deposit back from a generic national summary. Read Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1321 before the background sections below. Wrongful withholding can result in recovery of the deposit plus damages of twice the amount wrongfully withheld under § 33-1321.

When the deposit must be returned

14 days after termination and delivery of possession, with itemized deductions

Interest and accounting

No statewide interest requirement.

Penalties for wrongful withholding

Wrongful withholding can result in recovery of the deposit plus damages of twice the amount wrongfully withheld under § 33-1321.

A concrete Arizona scenario

Here is one way the Arizona pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.

A residential tenant moves out of a Arizona rental and the landlord has not returned the deposit.

Check the cap that applied when the deposit was collected: 1.5 months' rent.
Calendar the return deadline: 14 days after termination and delivery of possession, with itemized deductions
Interest, if any: No statewide interest requirement.
If the landlord keeps money without the required accounting: Wrongful withholding can result in recovery of the deposit plus damages of twice the amount wrongfully withheld under § 33-1321.

Arizona landlords may not demand more than one and one-half months’ rent as a security deposit. After move-out, they have 14 days to return the balance with an itemized list of deductions. Tenants commonly sue in justice court.

Practical process for tenants and landlords

Document the unit with dated photos or video at move-in and move-out, keep the lease and any inspection checklist, and send a dated written demand if the deadline passes without a lawful accounting.

Case law: security deposits in Arizona

Thomas TROLLOPE and Bernice Trollope, His Wife, Richard L. Stenz and Dorothy Stenz, His Wife, and Peter Kruidenier

Thomas TROLLOPE and Bernice Trollope, His Wife, Richard L. Stenz and Dorothy Stenz, His Wife, and Peter Kruidenier, 106 Ariz. 10 (1970)

…with renewal options), the monthly rent and the amount of a security deposit ($356.50 each), and a formula for determining rent during the optional renewal periods. There was a general agreement that the owners would make all of the improvements necessary to prepare the premises for a dental office, except for certain decorating and electrical and plumbing installation costs. T…

Arizona opinions such as Thomas TROLLOPE and Bernice Trollope, His Wife, Richard L. Stenz and Dorothy Stenz, His Wife, and Peter Kruidenier are cited where security deposits is disputed. The court stated: "There was a general agreement that the owners would make all of the improvements necessary to prepare the premises for a dental office, except for certain decorating and electrical and plumbing installation costs." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Robert T. COTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. J. BAYLESS MARKETS, INC., ABC Corporation; John Does 1-5

Robert T. COTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. J. BAYLESS MARKETS, INC., ABC Corporation; John Does 1-5, 128 Ariz. 438 (1981)

…he landlord after the lease term ended, seeking return of a security deposit which the landlord had taken to insure the lessee’s performance of all the lease covenants. The landlord, who had conveyed the leased property to another seven months before the lease expired, counterclaimed for damages done by the lessee, alleging that the lessee had breached his covenant to surrender…

Practitioners open Robert T. COTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. J. BAYLESS MARKETS, INC., ABC Corporation; John Does 1-5 when Arizona security deposits turns on the distinction in this sentence: "he landlord after the lease term ended, seeking return of a security deposit which the landlord had taken to insure the lessee’s performance of all the lease covenants. The landlord, who had conveyed the leased property to another seven months before the lease expired, countercla" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Michael SCHAEFER, Appellant, v. Janis F. MURPHEY, Appellee

Michael SCHAEFER, Appellant, v. Janis F. MURPHEY, Appellee, 131 Ariz. 295 (1982)

…0 which included: a. $200 for failure of Landlord to return security deposit in violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1321 and 33-1367; b. $132.40 representing expenses incurred due to Landlord’s failure to provide habitable premises; c. $624 for unlawful ouster in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1367. Landlord filed a notice of appeal from the portion of the judgment in favor of Tenant. We take…

Practitioners open Michael SCHAEFER, Appellant, v. Janis F. MURPHEY, Appellee when Arizona security deposits turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Landlord to return security deposit in violation of A.R.S. §§ 33-1321 and 33-1367; b. $132.40 representing expenses incurred due to Landlord’s failure to provide habitable premises; c. $624 for unlawful ouster in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1367." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

COCHISE HOTELS, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS HOTEL OPERATING CO., Inc., a Corporation, Appellee

COCHISE HOTELS, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS HOTEL OPERATING CO., Inc., a Corporation, Appellee, 83 Ariz. 40 (1957)

…se County to cancel the lease, and requesting return of the security deposit on the ground that the lease was induced and procured by fraud (Case No. 13885). Judgment was granted in favor of the landlord and the tenant appealed, but the appeal was later dismissed by stipulation. The tenant failed to pay the rent due under the lease on July 15, 1950, and as a result thereof, the…

Arizona opinions such as COCHISE HOTELS, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS HOTEL OPERATING CO., Inc., a Corporation, Appellee are cited where security deposits is disputed. The court stated: "County to cancel the lease, and requesting return of the security deposit on the ground that the lease was induced and procured by fraud (Case No. 13885). Judgment was granted in favor of the landlord and the tenant appealed, but the appeal was later dismissed by stipulation." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

Paul J. CRUM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, a Body Politic, Defendant-Appellant

Paul J. CRUM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, a Body Politic, Defendant-Appellant, 190 Ariz. 512 (1997)

…) as requiring an award of treble damages to a tenant whose security deposit was wrongfully withheld). Since 1978, however, Arizona appellate courts have repeatedly and uniformly interpreted the treble damages provision of § 23-355 as discretionary. See, e.g., Schade v. Diethrich, 158 Ariz. 1, 13-14, 760 P.2d 1050, 1062-63 (1988) (imposition of treble damages under statute is s…

Arizona opinions such as Paul J. CRUM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, a Body Politic, Defendant-Appellant are cited where security deposits is disputed. The court stated: "Since 1978, however, Arizona appellate courts have repeatedly and uniformly interpreted the treble damages provision of § 23-355 as discretionary. See, e.g., Schade v. Diethrich, 158 Ariz. 1, 13-14, 760 P." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION, a California Corporation, Appellant, v. U. S. I. F. PALO VERDE CORPORATION, an Arizona

INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION, a California Corporation, Appellant, v. U. S. I. F. PALO VERDE CORPORATION, an Arizona, 19 Ariz. App. 342 (1973)

…added over $27,000 to the above judgment for the amount of security deposits of various subleases between Industrial Park and third-party tenants. The parties also stipulated to this addendum. Industrial Park failed to pay its first installment under the judgment on December 1, 1970. On December 4, 1970, U.S.I.F. sent Industrial Park a telegram .threatening acceleration of the…

Practitioners open INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION, a California Corporation, Appellant, v. U. S. I. F. PALO VERDE CORPORATION, an Arizona when Arizona security deposits turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Industrial Park and third-party tenants. The parties also stipulated to this addendum. Industrial Park failed to pay its first installment under the judgment on December 1, 1970. On December 4, 1970, U.S.I.F. sent Industrial Park a telegram ." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Eric Haywood WEINSTEIN, Appellee

STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Eric Haywood WEINSTEIN, Appellee, 182 Ariz. 564 (1995)

…a letter he wrote to his landlord demanding a refund of his security deposit and the remainder of his rent. His letter informed his landlord that if he did not receive the $650.00 due him, he would take the following actions: (1) file suit immediately; (2) send significant records concerning the landlord’s business to the landlord’s business competitor; (3) contact the landlord…

On security deposits, STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Eric Haywood WEINSTEIN, Appellee speaks to the Arizona dispute in this passage: "His letter informed his landlord that if he did not receive the $650." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Monroe J. WINGATE, Petitioner, v. Hon. Harry GIN, Judge of the Pima County Superior Court, Division XIV, Respondent

Monroe J. WINGATE, Petitioner, v. Hon. Harry GIN, Judge of the Pima County Superior Court, Division XIV, Respondent, 148 Ariz. 289 (1985)

…the premises on September 28, requested that the $1,093.75 security deposit be applied to its unpaid rent for the month of September, and asked Wingate to “proceed to find a new tenant for the space.” On November 6, Wingate wrote a letter to his leasing agent in Tucson requesting progress reports on her attempts to relet the premises and stating that “we want to do everything…

Practitioners open Monroe J. WINGATE, Petitioner, v. Hon. Harry GIN, Judge of the Pima County Superior Court, Division XIV, Respondent when Arizona security deposits turns on the distinction in this sentence: "September 28, requested that the $1,093.75 security deposit be applied to its unpaid rent for the month of September, and asked Wingate to “proceed to find a new tenant for the space." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Key takeaways

Maximum deposit: 1.5 months' rent
Return deadline: 14 days after termination and delivery of possession, with itemized deductions
Interest: No statewide interest requirement.
Penalties: Wrongful withholding can result in recovery of the deposit plus damages of twice the amount wrongfully withheld under § 33-1321.
Primary authority: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1321.

Deposit limits in Arizona

1.5 months' rent

Frequently asked questions

How much can a landlord charge for a security deposit in Arizona?