Settlement Allocator Guide for Arizona

What this calculator does

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Settlement Allocator calculator.

DocketMath’s Settlement Allocator helps you break a settlement into allocation categories commonly used when coordinating claims that may have different legal timing rules. In Arizona, one recurring complexity is how the statute of limitations (SOL) can apply to different components of a case—especially when claims are grouped into one negotiated settlement figure.

This guide focuses on how the calculator can support timing-aware allocation decisions using Arizona’s criminal statute of limitations rule you provided:

• A.R.S. § 13-107(A): 2 years (your “O2” exception)
• A.R.S. § 13-107: 3 years (your “P3” exception)

Because the calculator is designed for allocation workflows rather than legal strategy, treat the output as organizational support for documents and settlement analysis—not as a substitute for a lawyer’s review or the court’s interpretation of the facts.

Key concept: settlement allocation and SOL timing

Arizona’s limitation period can be governed by the type of offense/claim tied to the conduct. The calculator uses your inputs (dates and allocation category selections) to help you:

• map each settlement component to a selected SOL rule window (e.g., 2 years vs 3 years based on your O2/P3 choices),
• determine whether a component appears to be time-barred under that selected rule, and
• generate an allocation-oriented output you can use in settlement documentation.

When to use it

Use the DocketMath Settlement Allocator when you have a settlement number (or range) and you need a disciplined way to allocate it across components that may be analyzed under different limitation windows.

Common triggers in Arizona workflows include:

• You’re settling a mixed set of allegations where some components track a 2-year SOL rule and others track a 3-year SOL rule (per your O2/P3 mapping).
• You have multiple conduct dates (e.g., different incidents or continuing conduct) and you want the allocation to reflect which date each component relates to.
• You’re preparing internal settlement notes or a draft allocation clause and want a consistent method tied to SOL calculations.
• You need clarity for negotiation: parties often focus on total settlement value; allocator tools help translate that total into components that can be evaluated against timing.

Practical checklist: inputs you’ll usually have

Before you use the calculator, gather:

Step-by-step example

Below is a concrete example you can mirror in the DocketMath calculator.

Scenario setup (Arizona; SOL rules from A.R.S. § 13-107)

Assume you’re allocating a settlement across two components:

1. Component A maps to O2 → 2-year SOL under **A.R.S. § 13-107(A)
2. Component B maps to P3 → 3-year SOL under A.R.S. § 13-107

You have:

• Settlement date: March 1, 2025
• Component A conduct date: February 15, 2023
• Component B conduct date: February 15, 2021
• Total settlement amount: $60,000

For allocation, suppose you’re planning to assign:

• $25,000 to Component A
• $35,000 to Component B

Step 1: Determine the SOL expiration windows (as the calculator would conceptually do)

**For Component A (O2 / 2 years; A.R.S. § 13-107(A))

• Conduct date: Feb 15, 2023
• 2-year window ends: Feb 15, 2025
• Settlement date: Mar 1, 2025 (after Feb 15, 2025)

Result conceptually: Component A appears outside the 2-year window if the conduct date controls.

**For Component B (P3 / 3 years; A.R.S. § 13-107)

• Conduct date: Feb 15, 2021
• 3-year window ends: Feb 15, 2024
• Settlement date: Mar 1, 2025 (also after Feb 15, 2024)

Result conceptually: Component B appears outside the 3-year window as well—meaning both components are time-barred under these simplified date-to-SOL mappings.

Step 2: Enter the numbers in DocketMath

In DocketMath’s Settlement Allocator (tool name), you would typically set:

• Total settlement amount: $60,000
• Allocation components:

  • Component A:

    • Category: **O2 (2 years)
    • Conduct date: 02/15/2023
    • Amount: $25,000
  • Component B:

    • Category: **P3 (3 years)
    • Conduct date: 02/15/2021
    • Amount: $35,000
• Settlement date: 03/01/2025

Step 3: Review output categories and timing flags

The calculator’s output will usually help you see, for each component:

• the selected SOL length (2 years or 3 years),
• the computed expiration date based on the entered conduct date,
• whether the settlement date falls before or after that expiration.

Example output summary (illustrative):

Step 4: Use the allocation-aware timing result in settlement documents

Even when a settlement is reached, parties often need to:

• document how much of the settlement is tied to each alleged conduct timeframe,
• track which components are more sensitive to timing defenses,
• keep internal records consistent across versions of settlement drafts.

The calculator helps you produce that allocation ledger with date-driven SOL windows tied to your O2/P3 mapping.

Common scenarios

Here are frequent patterns where the DocketMath allocator approach is most useful in Arizona.

1) One incident, two SOL mappings (misalignment risk)

Sometimes a settlement references one incident but uses different legal characterizations in different documents. If one component is treated as 2 years (O2 under A.R.S. § 13-107(A)) while another characterization is treated as 3 years (P3 under A.R.S. § 13-107), the expiration dates can diverge.

What to do:

• Assign each component to a single mapped category in the calculator.
• Keep your component definitions tied to specific conduct dates.

2) Multiple incidents with different conduct dates

If there are separate dates (for example: March 10, 2022 and October 2, 2023), allocating by conduct date keeps timing logic coherent.

Practical method:

• Create one component per conduct date cluster.
• Map each to O2 or P3 based on the offense/claim type you’re treating it as.

3) Settlement date vs. “key litigation date”

Your settlement date is often not the same as when proceedings were filed or when a complaint was served. If your goal is purely settlement allocation (not filing-risk analysis), using the settlement date can be enough to support your internal narrative and documentation.

Still, you should be consistent:

• If the calculator output is intended for SOL-oriented analysis, make sure your “settlement date” aligns with the concept you’re trying to evaluate.

4) Changing allocation percentages during negotiation

Negotiators frequently revise how much value goes to each component. The calculator is helpful because:

• you can update allocation amounts without redoing the date logic,
• timing flags remain tied to the conduct dates and chosen SOL categories.

Tips for accuracy

Accuracy is less about math and more about ensuring your entries reflect how the underlying components are defined.

Date precision: use the earliest defensible conduct date you have

When you enter conduct dates, the calculator will compute SOL expiration from them. If you:

• choose a later conduct date than the earliest possible date, you may shift a component into an apparently “timely” window,
• choose an earlier conduct date, you may show more components as time-barred.

Guideline:

• If you have a confirmed date for the underlying conduct, enter it.
• If the record supports a range, decide whether you will anchor to the earliest date for conservative timing documentation.

Keep category mapping consistent (O2 vs P3)

Your SOL inputs should remain aligned with the categories you select:

• **O2 → 2 years under A.R.S. § 13-107(A)
• P3 → 3 years under A.R.S. § 13-107

If you switch a component’s category midstream, you’ll also switch which computed expiration date applies.

Validate totals against allocated sums

Related reading

• Settlement Allocator Guide for Alabama
• Settlement Allocator Guide for California
• Settlement Allocator Guide for Colorado