Abandonment by Tenant in Arizona

Background

“Abandonment occurs when the occupant vacates the premises with intent to relinquish all rights therein, and such intent can be shown by words or conduct.” (See Montano v. Luff (2020) 480 P.3d 669, 674 n.6.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“An intent to abandon can be shown by words or conduct, and the question is one of fact unless reasonable men could not differ." (See Villa 14 LLC v. Osio, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0430, at *8 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 22, 2018).)

“Intent can be shown by words or conduct.” (See Gangadean v. Erickson (1972) 17 Ariz. App. 131, 133.)

“The question of abandonment is a factual one depending upon all of the surrounding circumstances.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review de novo dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” (See Coleman v. City of Mesa (2012) 230 Ariz. 352, 355, ¶ 7; Wasielewski v. the Kroger Co., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0697, at *3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2017).)

“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if as a matter of law plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” (See id.)

“We assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts, but statements of legal conclusions without supporting factual allegations are insufficient to form a basis for relief.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “abandonment is the act of intentionally and voluntarily relinquishing a known right absolutely and without reference to any particular person or purpose.” (See Blum v. State, Dept. of Corrections (1992) 171 Ariz. 201, 206.)

However, it is also well settled that “a forfeiture, on the other hand, is enforced and involuntary and occurs without regard to intention.” (See Blum v. State, Dept. of Corrections (1992) 171 Ariz. 201, 206.)