Structured Settlement rule lens: Arizona

The rule in plain language

In Arizona, the general criminal statute of limitations is 2 years. The governing provision is A.R.S. § 13-107(A), which sets the default limitations period for criminal offenses unless a different rule applies.

For this Structured Settlement rule lens: Arizona, the DocketMath structured-settlement calculator is meant to help you model timelines and payment schedules for structured settlements. In practice, discussions that reference “limitations” often show up as timing assumptions—such as delayed discovery, delayed filing, or a desire to identify a defensible “latest possible” date.

Key clarity for this jurisdiction lens:

• No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found for this lens. That means this article uses the general/default period only: 2 years under A.R.S. § 13-107(A).
• If a particular scenario involves a different limitations framework (for example, a special statutory provision that overrides the general rule), that can change the computation. This lens does not assume those exceptions—it intentionally sticks to the baseline unless you input a different timing rule elsewhere.

How the limitation period typically gets used in settlement modeling

People often use “limitations” in settlement planning to think about:

• the latest date something must be filed or raised to be timely,
• the outer boundary for when certain facts remain legally actionable,
• and the practical negotiation window driven by procedural risk.

Because structured settlements revolve around timing—like an issue date, a payment start date, and the length of an installment stream—limitations periods frequently inform “what if” scenarios (e.g., “what if we structure this now vs. later?”).

Why it matters for calculations

Structured settlement modeling isn’t only about how much money is paid—it’s also about when payments start and how long they run. Small changes in assumed dates can affect:

• payment start date (immediate vs. deferred),
• number of installments and total term,
• discounting / present value comparisons (if you’re using those settings or outputs),
• and the settlement narrative that parties rely on during negotiation.

The Arizona baseline: 2 years

For this lens, the default limitations period is:

This matters because structured settlement calculations often depend on a reference date—for example:

• the event date (when the conduct occurred),
• an estimated trigger date (when the claim might be treated as actionable),
• or a negotiation date that parties treat as the effective starting point for planning.

Even if you’re not literally modeling a lawsuit filing deadline, using the 2-year baseline can help you choose timeline assumptions that are defensible as a “latest plausible boundary” rather than arbitrary dates.

Practical input impacts (examples)

In DocketMath, you can test how timeline assumptions change outcomes:

• If you move the reference date later (closer to the end of the 2-year window), then:

  • a deferred-start scenario becomes more compressed,
  • the installment stream typically shifts later in the calendar,
  • and present value comparisons can change because cash flows move.

• If your structured settlement is intended to resolve timing risk, then the “latest plausible boundary” can influence:

  • whether parties prefer earlier payments (reducing uncertainty),
  • or longer structured deferrals (increasing time-value effects but extending uncertainty).

Important limitation: this lens uses the general default only

This article treats A.R.S. § 13-107(A) as the default limitations period. It does not identify or apply:

• claim-type-specific exceptions,
• offense-specific limitation adjustments,
• or any special rule that could override the general period.

If your facts suggest a special provision may apply, you should recalculate the timing based on that specific rule rather than relying on the general default.

Use the calculator

DocketMath’s structured-settlement calculator helps you turn timeline assumptions into a structured payment schedule you can compare across scenarios. You’ll typically provide inputs related to dates and payment cadence, then review the output schedule and any timing-sensitive metrics.

Inputs to consider (and how they affect outputs)

Use this checklist to align your assumptions with Arizona’s 2-year general baseline from A.R.S. § 13-107(A):

• Ensures the lens uses the 2-year general/default limitations period.
• Changing this shifts the computed “latest-risk boundary” used in planning assumptions.
• If you defer start, the installment stream shifts later, typically affecting present value.
• More frequent payments generally change the distribution of cash flows over time.
• Shorter terms compress cash flows; longer terms extend them.
• Different discount assumptions can materially change comparisons between schedules.

Scenario workflow you can run in DocketMath

1. Start with a baseline scenario

   • Use the default 2-year boundary as a planning constraint tied to your reference date.
2. Run a “shift later” scenario

   • Move the payment start date forward while keeping other assumptions stable.
3. Run a “shift earlier” scenario

   • Bring the payment start date earlier and compare the resulting schedule/timing outputs.
4. Compare results side-by-side

   • Focus on: installment timing, total payment duration, and any timing-sensitive output fields shown.

To jump in now, use the primary CTA: Open DocketMath Structured Settlement calculator.

If you also need timeline math or supporting date calculations before building the payment schedule, you may find it useful to start from /tools.

What to watch for in outputs

When reviewing calculator results, check:

• whether the computed timeline aligns with your chosen reference date and the 2-year window,
• whether the output schedule implies a payment plan that starts after your assumed constraint point,
• how present value (if shown) changes when you shift dates.

Sources and references

Start with the primary authority for Arizona and confirm the effective date before relying on any output. If the rule has been amended, update the inputs and rerun the calculation.

• Primary authority reference

Related reading

• Structured Settlement Calculator Guide for Alabama
• Structured Settlement Calculator Guide for Colorado
• Structured Settlement Calculator Guide for Connecticut