Validity of Forged Deeds under A.R.S. § 12-524’s Five-Year Limitations Period

Introduction

Dominguez v. Dominguez (Supreme Court of Arizona, April 16, 2025) addresses a family dispute over ownership of a vacant lot in Maricopa County. Magdalena Rios De Dominguez’s estate (Plaintiff/Appellant) alleged that a 2003 deed transferring title to her son Jose and daughter-in-law Renee was a forgery. Renee Kay Dominguez (Defendant/Appellee) held the recorded deed, paid all taxes on the property, and asserted that, under A.R.S. § 12-524’s five-year limitations period, she acquired full title that cannot be challenged. The key legal questions were:

Does a “recorded deed” under § 12-524 include a deed that is facially valid but forged?
Did Magdalena preserve arguments for equitable tolling and the discovery rule to defeat the statute of limitations?

The Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to consider those procedural issues.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court—through Chief Justice Timmer—held:

A.R.S. § 12-524’s term “recorded deed” encompasses any deed that on its face satisfies the statutory requisites of a valid conveyance (proper description, grantor/grantee identity, notarization and recording), even if the deed was later proven forged.
Once a party holds a “recorded deed,” claims ownership, and pays property taxes for five consecutive years, § 12-524 bars any quiet-title action, and § 12-527 vests full title in that party.
Magdalena preserved her equitable tolling and discovery-rule arguments below; the Court of Appeals erred in finding waiver. Those issues must be addressed on remand.
Requests for attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. §§ 12-1103 and 33-420 are premature and may be re-urged after final adjudication.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Sparks v. Douglas & Sparks Realty Co. (1917): Interprets the predecessor to § 12-524, holding that a deed “not void upon its face” but obtained by fraud or forged signature still satisfies the recorded-deed element for adverse possession.
Nicholas v. Giles (1967): Treats a tax deed that was void for lack of an affidavit as a “recorded deed” under § 12-524 because no facial defect appeared in the recorded document.
Quality Plastics, Inc. v. Moore (1981): Confirms that a facially adequate treasurer’s deed, though voidable for other reasons, qualifies as a recorded deed for the five-year limitation.
Out-of-state decisions (e.g., Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC and Faison v. Lewis) hold that forged deeds are void ab initio and immune from limitation—but these courts apply different statutory schemes and are not persuasive under Arizona law.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s interpretive path combined text, structure, history, and longstanding precedent:

Textual analysis: Neither “deed” nor “recorded deed” is defined in § 12-524; common-law definitions embrace any signed, notarized instrument that purports to transfer land and is deposited with the recorder.
Statutory structure: §§ 12-523 and 12-525 expressly exclude dishonest or forged instruments from their respective limitations periods, whereas § 12-524 contains no such exception—so the legislature must have intended to include all facially valid deeds.
Omitted-case canon: Courts must not insert exclusions or qualifications that the legislature deliberately omitted from § 12-524.
Historical practice: Since territorial times, § 12-524 and its predecessors have enabled swift cures of title disputes over city and town lots, fostering real-estate development.
Precedent: Sparks and its progeny confirm that “color of title” under § 12-524 depends on facial validity, not actual effectiveness of the deed.

3. Impact

The Court’s decision will shape Arizona real-property litigation by:

Allowing holders of forged deeds to invoke a five-year bar to quiet-title actions, provided their deed appears valid and they paid taxes continuously.
Prompting practitioners to advise vulnerable clients (especially the elderly) to monitor record chains and challenge suspect conveyances within the statutory period.
Encouraging legislative consideration of a forgery exception in § 12-524 to protect property owners from surreptitious fraud.
Reaffirming that equitable tolling and discovery-rule arguments must be raised below to preserve appellate review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Quiet-Title Action: A lawsuit to declare one’s legal ownership of real property and remove competing claims from the record.
Adverse Possession (under § 12-524): A statutory shortcut to title when a claimant holds a recorded deed, claims ownership, and pays taxes for five years—regardless of the deed’s actual validity.
Color of Title: A written instrument that appears to pass legal title, even if it is later voided or declared defective.
Equitable Tolling: A doctrine that pauses the running of a statute of limitations when fairness requires—e.g., a plaintiff is misled or prevented from timely filing.
Discovery Rule: A principle holding that a claim accrues, and thus a statute of limitations begins, when a plaintiff discovers (or reasonably should have discovered) the injury or wrongdoing.
Omitted-Case Canon: A rule of statutory interpretation that courts will not supply language or exclusions the legislature deliberately omitted.

Conclusion

Dominguez v. Dominguez establishes that under Arizona’s five-year quiet-title statute (A.R.S. § 12-524), a deed is “recorded” if it facially bears all elements of a proper conveyance—even if it was forged. By refusing to read in a fraud or forgery exclusion, the Supreme Court adheres to the text and structure of the statute and century-old precedents. Practitioners should now alert clients to monitor recorded instruments, consider early challenges to questionable deeds, and, where appropriate, petition the legislature for reform to protect against property-theft by forgery.