Forged Deeds Can Still Win: How Arizona’s Quiet Title Laws Protect Even Fraudulent Documents
June 17, 2025
By Ryan C. Squire
Most people assume forged deeds are worthless legal documents that could never support valid property claims. The recent Arizona Supreme Court case Estate of Dominguez v. Dominguez undercuts that assumption, holding that even completely forged deeds can provide the foundation for acquiring property ownership under certain circumstances. The decision reveals how statutory technicalities can trump common-sense notions of fairness, potentially allowing sophisticated fraudsters to steal property through carefully orchestrated schemes.
The Family Feud Over a Vacant Lot
The Dominguez case began as a typical family property dispute but evolved into a legal precedent with troubling implications. In 1995, Magdalena and Isidro Dominguez acquired a vacant lot in Maricopa County through a joint tenancy deed. After divorcing in 1998, they supposedly conveyed the property to their son Jose and his wife Renee through a deed recorded in 2003.
The problems started after both Isidro and Jose died— Isidro in 2012 and Jose in 2020. Shortly after Jose’s death, Magdalena discovered the 2003 deed and claimed it was a complete forgery. She alleged that someone had forged both her signature and her ex-husband’s signature to transfer the property to Jose and Renee without their knowledge or consent.
Renee disputed this claim, arguing that Jose had originally purchased the property but put it in his parents’ names before they legitimately transferred it back to the young couple. Regardless of who was telling the truth about the deed’s authenticity, both Jose and Renee had been paying property taxes on the lot for over 17 years since the 2003 deed was recorded.
When Magdalena sued to quiet title to the property in 2020, claiming the deed was forged, she faced an unexpected legal obstacle. Arizona’s statute of limitations for challenging property ownership in certain circumstances had already expired, potentially barring her claims even if the deed was indeed forged.
Arizona’s Unique Five-Year Rule
Arizona Revised Statute 12-524 creates a powerful legal mechanism for acquiring property ownership that operates independently of deed validity. The statute provides that actions to recover city or town lots must be brought within five years against someone who has a “recorded deed,” claims ownership, and has paid property taxes for five consecutive years. If no challenge is filed within this period, the property owner receives “full title precluding all claims” per Section 12-527.
This is not traditional adverse possession, which typically requires open, notorious, and continuous physical occupation of property. Instead, Section 12-524 creates a form of “paper title” adverse possession that can operate based purely on recorded documents and tax payments, without any requirement that the claimant actually occupy or use the property.
The critical question in the Dominguez case was whether a “recorded deed” under Section 12-524 must be legally valid to convey property, or whether any deed that appears facially valid qualifies, even if it’s completely forged. The answer has profound implications for property security throughout Arizona.
Why Forged Deeds Count as “Recorded Deeds”
The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that forged deeds can qualify as “recorded deeds” under Section 12-524, even when they’re completely fraudulent. The court’s reasoning relied on several key factors that reveal how statutory interpretation can diverge sharply from common-sense expectations.
First, the court emphasized that Section 12-524 does not require the deed to actually convey legal title. Instead, the statute itself conveys title after five years of compliance with its requirements. The deed serves as evidence of a claim to ownership, not as the actual mechanism that transfers ownership. Since compliance with the statute, not the deed, ultimately conveys title, the deed’s legal validity becomes irrelevant to the statutory scheme. Thus, even though a forged deed cannot convey legal title, that is irrelevant to the analysis.
Second, if “recorded deed” required legal validity, Section 12-524 would become meaningless. Property owners with legally valid deeds would not need the statute’s protection because their deeds would already provide clear title. The statute only makes sense if it protects people whose title claims might be questionable, including those based on defective or forged documents.
Third, the court examined how other Arizona statutes treat forged deeds and found compelling evidence of legislative intent. Arizona Revised Statutes 12-523 and 12-525 establish different limitation periods for recovering real property, and both explicitly exclude forged deeds from their protections. Section 12-523 excludes claims involving “‘the want of intrinsic fairness and honesty,’” while Section 12-525 specifically states that “no one claiming under a forged deed” can benefit from that statute.
The legislature’s decision to include anti-forgery provisions in these related statutes while omitting similar language from Section 12-524 suggested deliberate intent to allow forged deeds to qualify under the five-year rule. Courts generally assume that when legislatures include specific provisions in some statutes but omit them from others, the omission is intentional.
Historical Precedent Supporting Fraudulent Claims
The court’s interpretation was not created from whole cloth but built on over a century of Arizona precedent dating back to territorial days. In the 1917 case Sparks v. Douglas & Sparks Realty Co., the Arizona Supreme Court addressed deeds where one party had allegedly forged another’s signature under a fraudulent power of attorney.
The Sparks court established the key principle that a “recorded deed” under the statute means “‘a deed not void upon its face, which, tested by itself, has all the constituent parts knitted into that kind of an instrument, not that it is a conveyance, but that it purports to operate as a conveyance.’” In other words, if a deed looked valid when examined on its face— regardless of whether it was actually authorized by the purported signers—it qualified as a “recorded deed.”
The Sparks court also noted that good faith was not required under the statute. Unlike adverse possession doctrines that sometimes require honest belief in one’s ownership rights, Section 12-524 can protect even those who know their claims are based on fraudulent documents. This creates the disturbing possibility that sophisticated fraudsters could deliberately exploit the statute to steal property.
The Mechanics of Potential Fraud Schemes
The concurring justices in Dominguez highlighted the troubling implications of the majority’s interpretation. They described a potential fraud scenario that could victimize vulnerable property owners, particularly elderly citizens who represent a substantial portion of Arizona’s population.
Under the court’s interpretation, an unscrupulous person could gain a property owner’s trust, forge a deed transferring the property to themselves, record the forged deed with the county, and then pay property taxes on the property for five years. If the victim does not discover the fraud and file a quiet title action within five years, they lose ownership of their property permanently.
This scheme becomes particularly insidious when the fraudster uses the victim’s own funds to pay the property taxes. Elderly property owners who rely on others to manage their financial affairs could unknowingly fund their own victimization while the five-year clock runs toward extinguishing their property rights.
The majority and concurring justices acknowledged these concerns but emphasized that judges cannot rewrite statutes to prevent perceived injustices. If the law creates opportunities for abuse, only the legislature can address those problems by amending the statutes.
The Limited Hope of Equitable Defenses
While the Dominguez court ruled that forged deeds can qualify as “recorded deeds” under Section 12-524, it left open the possibility that equitable tolling or discovery rule arguments might save some victims of deed forgery. These doctrines can potentially extend limitation periods when circumstances make it unfair to enforce strict deadlines.
Equitable tolling might apply when a fraudster’s actions prevent the victim from discovering the fraud within the statutory period. If someone deliberately conceals their fraudulent activities to run out the limitation period, courts might extend the deadline to allow legitimate challenges.
The discovery rule typically starts limitation periods when victims actually discover, or reasonably should have discovered, the fraud against them. Rather than beginning when the fraudulent deed is recorded, the limitation period might not start until the victim becomes aware of the forgery.
However, these equitable defenses face significant hurdles under Arizona law. Courts are reluctant to override clear statutory deadlines, particularly when the legislature has created detailed limitation schemes for different circumstances. Property owners should not rely on these potential defenses instead of vigilant monitoring of their property interests.
Legislative Solutions and Future Changes
The concurring justices in Dominguez essentially invited legislative action to address the statute’s potential for abuse. They noted that Section 12-524 was originally enacted during Arizona’s territorial period when rapid growth and unclear land ownership created widespread title disputes. The legislature may have deliberately chosen to prioritize quick resolution of title issues over protection against fraud.
Modern circumstances are different from those territorial days. Arizona’s sophisticated recording systems and established legal infrastructure make it easier to verify property ownership and detect fraudulent documents. The balance between encouraging development and protecting against fraud may need recalibration for contemporary conditions.
Potential legislative fixes could include adding anti-forgery provisions to Section 12-524 similar to those in Sections 12-523 and 12-525. Alternatively, the legislature could require additional notice procedures or extend limitation periods when fraud is involved. Some states require adverse possession claimants to provide specific notice to record property owners before acquiring title.
Key Takeaways
The Dominguez decision demonstrates how technical legal doctrines can produce results that conflict sharply with common-sense notions of fairness. Even completely forged deeds can provide the foundation for acquiring property ownership under Arizona’s five-year quiet title statute, creating opportunities for sophisticated fraud schemes targeting vulnerable property owners.
Property owners must monitor public records actively and respond quickly to suspicious documents. The five-year limitation period under Section 12-524 creates strict deadlines that can permanently extinguish legitimate ownership claims if missed.
While equitable defenses like tolling and discovery rules might provide some protection against fraud, they’re uncertain remedies that should not substitute for vigilant property monitoring. The best protection against deed forgery schemes is early detection and prompt legal action.
The case also illustrates the importance of statutory interpretation methodology in property law. Courts’ fidelity to legislative text, even when it produces harsh results, reflects constitutional principles about separation of powers and judicial restraint. When statutes create unintended consequences or opportunities for abuse, the remedy lies in legislative amendment rather than judicial reinterpretation.
For real estate professionals, the decision emphasizes the critical importance of thorough title examination and the limitations of relying solely on recorded documents. Even facially valid deeds may be fraudulent or forged, and the legal system’s protection against such fraud has significant temporal limits that make prevention far preferable to cure.
Want More Case Law Analysis?
Click here to subscribe to The Title Insurance Law Journal to get access to more important case law.
Ryan C. Squire, chair of Garrett & Tully's Real Estate Litigation and Title Insurance Practice Group, is the writer and editor of The Title Insurance Law Journal (Journal). This article was originally published in the Journal.
Contact ALTA at 202-296-3671 or [email protected].