• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Arizona - Removal of a Guest

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.


Senior Member
I came across this interesting section of the AZ landlord tenant statutes that I hadn't noticed before. It was enacted in 2015.

33-1378. Removal of guest
A person who is a guest of a tenant who is not named on a written lease and who remains on the premises without the permission of the tenant or the landlord is not a lawful tenant and that person's presence in or on the premises does not constitute residency or tenancy. A person who knowingly remains on the premises without the permission of the tenant or the landlord may be removed by a law enforcement officer at the request of the tenant or the landlord who is entitled to possession of the premises.

Sure makes it easy to get rid of a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend when the relationship is over, or a guest or problem roommate that has overstayed his/her welcome and won't leave. Just make sure they were never put on the lease.

"I'm breaking up with you. Pack your stuff and be out by the end of the day or I'm calling the police to put you out. Here's the law."

I wonder if any other states have something like this.


Senior Member
Michigan allows for removal by police of "trespassers," which can be unwelcome or no longer welcome house guests - but as soon as a house guest receives mail at the address, or in some other way establishes residence, then there must be a formal eviction.


Senior Member
IS there any where else IN AZ law that defines tenancy / month to month oral tenancy that could cause a conflict as to which law is valid? im tired, bed time


Senior Member
The Arizona landlord tenant statute Section 33-1310 - General Definitions:

12. "Rental agreement" means all agreements, written, oral or implied by law, and valid rules and regulations adopted under section 33-1342 embodying the terms and conditions concerning the use and occupancy of a dwelling unit and premises.

16. "Tenant" means a person entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others.
I don't think that 33-1378 applies to someone who has been paying rent under an oral month to month rental agreement.
In California, we have "Lodgers" which is defined as one person renting one room under the dwelling of the owner. That is your description here in California IF the person you renting from OWNS the property. The eviction process is informal and its one billing cycle and of no less than 7 days from what I recall. Here in California, you can set in the contract that rent is due weekly and you can give them a 7day notice. At the end of the 7days they legally become demoted to a status of "Guess" at that point, you can ask the guess to leave and if they refuse they then become a Trespasser. Now here's the Gray Area, IVE ONLY SEEN THIS EVER HAPPEN TWICE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, When the peace officer comes on site it's not the responsibility of the Peace Officer to validate if the removal of the Trespasser is lawful. It's for the Trespasser to sue the Landlord and the Judge will conclude if the removal was unlawful. In practice, this normally stops as the officer will see it as Both as Civil issue instead of criminal OR he will take it that the person is not a Trespasser but a Tenant. Here in California, it's important when providing documents to your Lodger to call them a Lodger in the document and state the Lodger codes so when the Peace Officer shows he doesn't start getting the word tenant stuck in his head and leaves you in the dust with the Lodger still in your building.

The background of this idea is California is very pro FAMILY and in that regards Tenants. A Lodger is ONE PERSON renting ONE ROOM and is not obviously considered a Family in the eye's of the state so formal eviction hears are not required (But sadly normally are for what I stated above)

§ 33-1375. Periodic tenancy; hold-over
A. The landlord or the tenant may terminate a week-to-week
tenancy by a written notice given to the other at
least ten days prior to the termination date specified in
the notice.

Another interesting read, https://www.arizonatenants.com/1378.htm
Don't put em on the lease lol
Last edited:
Sponsored Ad