The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on June 12, 2026, in the case of Karolina Barrera v. Sedona Pointe LLC, clarifying the requirements for eviction notices under the federal Coronavirus Economic Stabilization (CARES) Act. The court denied Barrera's appeal against her eviction, stating that the thirty-day notice requirement does not apply if the eviction notice was issued after the expiration of the federal eviction moratorium. This decision impacts tenants and landlords across Arizona, particularly those involved in eviction proceedings.
The case began when Barrera, a tenant at Sedona Pointe Apartments, received a notice on February 1, 2025, stating that she had breached her lease by failing to pay rent. The notice demanded that she either cure the default within five days or vacate the premises within thirty days. Sedona Pointe filed an eviction complaint on March 7, thirty-four days after giving Barrera the notice. Barrera argued that the notice was insufficient because it did not explicitly inform her of her right to a thirty-day period to cure her nonpayment of rent as required by the CARES Act.
The dispute escalated through the justice and superior courts, where Barrera's motion to dismiss the eviction was denied. The courts ruled that the notice provided by Sedona Pointe complied with the applicable laws. Barrera then sought special action review from the Arizona Court of Appeals, which accepted jurisdiction over the matter, as it involved significant questions of law regarding the CARES Act's provisions.
The court's ruling focused on the interpretation of the CARES Act, particularly 15 U.S.C. § 9058(c)(1), which requires landlords to provide a thirty-day notice before evicting tenants. The court concluded that the notice requirement is tied to the federal eviction moratorium and does not apply once the moratorium has expired. Judge O'Neil, who authored the opinion, noted, "The thirty-day notice period in § 9058(c)(1) does not apply to Sedona Pointe’s eviction notice."
The court explained that Barrera's nonpayment occurred after the moratorium had ended, meaning the thirty-day notice period was no longer in effect. The ruling emphasized that the notice provided by Sedona Pointe informed Barrera of her obligations and rights, including the five-day window to cure her nonpayment.
This ruling has significant implications for landlords and tenants in Arizona. It clarifies that the protections afforded by the CARES Act are not indefinite and that landlords can proceed with eviction actions once the moratorium has expired. The decision may influence how eviction notices are drafted and the expectations of tenants regarding their rights in similar situations.
In addition, the court's interpretation aligns with a broader trend seen in other states where courts have grappled with the applicability of the CARES Act's provisions after the expiration of the federal eviction moratorium. While some states have maintained that the thirty-day notice requirement remains in effect, Arizona's ruling suggests a more restrictive interpretation that limits the duration of such protections.
Looking ahead, the case sets a precedent for how eviction actions will be handled in Arizona, particularly in relation to federal law. Landlords must ensure that their eviction notices comply with state law and any applicable federal regulations, while tenants should be aware of their rights and the timeline for addressing any rental payment issues.
As for Barrera, the court's ruling effectively ends her appeal, and the eviction process will proceed as outlined in the notice she received. There is no indication that the decision will be appealed further, as the court has clarified the legal standards surrounding eviction notices under the CARES Act.
In summary, the Arizona Court of Appeals has provided important guidance on the interaction between federal eviction protections and state law, emphasizing the need for clear communication between landlords and tenants regarding their rights and responsibilities.