7.2 Test for Having Receiver Appointed.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

Early Arizona law adhered to the concept of receivership as a means of preserving the property and preventing waste. Prior to 1971, following Dart v. Western Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 103 Ariz. 170, 438 P.2d 407 (1968), the Arizona law seemed clear that a mortgagee was not entitled to have a receiver appointed where the security was adequate and there was no real threat of waste. The theory was that since a mortgage is merely a lien, the mortgagor is entitled to possession and to all the benefits of possession, including income from the property. Id.

In response to the Dart case, the legislature enacted A.R.S. § 33-702(B)...