Free Arizona Month-to-Month Rental Agreement

An Arizona month-to-month tenancy runs until one side ends it in writing. Under A.R.S. § 33-1375(B) either the landlord or the tenant may terminate with written notice given at least thirty days before the periodic rental date named in the notice. The period is symmetric: neither side owes the other more warning. What the section does require is that the notice be written, that it be given to the other party, and that it specify a termination date that is a periodic rental date. This builder produces an agreement that records those terms up front, so the tenancy starts with both sides holding the same document.

Fill in the fields below and the generator produces a clean, dated PDF you can print, sign and keep with your records. Nothing is stored and there is no charge. Fields you leave blank print as a dash so you can complete them by hand.

Watch: Free Arizona Month-to-Month Rental Agreement explained

▶ Watch overview

A month-to-month agreement sets the same terms a fixed-term lease does — the premises, the parties, the rent and when it falls due, the deposit, who pays which utility, what the house rules are — and then leaves the end date open. The tenancy renews each period until one side ends it. That flexibility is the point, and it is also the thing that catches people out: because there is no expiry date to plan around, the notice provisions are doing all the work, and most disputes about a periodic tenancy are really disputes about whether a notice was good. Recording the notice period, the address each party sends notice to and the method of delivery in the agreement itself removes most of that argument before it starts.

• The full names of the landlord and of every adult tenant, and an address for each where notice can be sent
• The address of the premises, including the unit number
• The rent, the interval it covers, and the periodic rental date it falls due on — the date § 33-1375(B) measures the notice against
• That the tenancy is month-to-month and continues until terminated by written notice
• The notice each side must give, read against § 33-1375’s “at least thirty days”
• The security deposit, where it is held, and what the tenant is told about getting it back
• Which utilities and services each party pays for
• The pet, smoking, guest and alteration rules, since a periodic tenancy is often where these are tested
• Any document attached to and forming part of the agreement, named in the agreement itself

• Counting thirty days forward from the notice date. The statute counts backwards from a periodic rental date. The two calculations give the same answer only when notice happens to be given exactly thirty days before a rental date.
• Giving oral notice. § 33-1375 says written notice in both subsections. A conversation, a text agreed in passing or a voicemail is not what the section asks for, and the party who relied on it carries the problem.
• Assuming a week-to-week arrangement gets thirty days. It does not. § 33-1375(A) sets ten days for a week-to-week tenancy, and the agreement should say which of the two this is.
• Staying on after the date in the notice. § 33-1375(C) lets the landlord bring an action for possession, and where the holdover is “willful and not in good faith” it adds up to two months’ periodic rent or twice the actual damages, whichever is greater.
• Assuming the agreement can shorten the statutory notice. § 33-1375 says “at least thirty days”, which reads as a minimum, and the section contains no clause permitting the parties to contract out. Do not assume the reverse either — some states expressly allow it, and Pennsylvania’s equivalent provision lets a tenant waive notice altogether where the lease so provides. Recording a longer period is uncontroversial and is a choice the parties can make.

Thirty days, from either side. A.R.S. § 33-1375(B) provides that the landlord or the tenant may terminate a month-to-month tenancy by written notice given to the other at least thirty days before the periodic rental date specified in the notice. There is no asymmetry here — unlike Georgia, where the landlord owes sixty days and the tenant thirty, Arizona gives both sides the same period.

The subsection immediately before it sets a shorter period for a shorter tenancy: § 33-1375(A) allows a week-to-week tenancy to be ended on ten days’ written notice. Which of the two applies is decided by how the rent is payable, so an agreement that is vague about the rental interval is also vague about the notice period.

Upwards, generally yes; downwards, no. A rental agreement is free to promise more warning than the statute requires — a landlord who wants sixty days’ notice from a tenant can bargain for it — but a private contract does not reduce a protection the legislature set as a minimum. § 33-1375 uses the words “at least”, which is the language of a floor.

Where the parties do agree a longer period, the agreement has to say so plainly and the generator above records it in the ENDING THE TENANCY section, alongside the address each party sends notice to. That second field matters more than it looks: a notice sent to an address the other side abandoned months ago is a notice that never arrived.

§ 33-1375(C) covers it. If the tenant remains in possession without the landlord’s consent after the tenancy has been terminated, the landlord may bring an action for possession. Where the holdover is willful and not in good faith, the section adds a further remedy: an amount equal to not more than two months’ periodic rent, or twice the actual damages sustained by the landlord, whichever is greater.

Two things are worth noticing about that. The extra remedy is capped, not automatic — it requires the holdover to be willful and in bad faith, so a tenant who genuinely disputes whether the notice was valid is in a different position from one who simply refuses to leave. And it is in addition to possession, not instead of it. Arizona’s figure is also lower than Kentucky’s, whose equivalent provision reaches three months’ rent or threefold damages plus attorney’s fees — and then only in the Kentucky jurisdictions that adopted the uniform act, which is a caveat almost every published Kentucky figure omits. Either way, these near-identical sections are not interchangeable across states.

If the landlord consents in writing to the tenant staying on, the section routes to § 33-1314(D) instead, and the arrangement is no longer a holdover at all.

They are different documents. A § 33-1375 notice ends a tenancy that nobody says has gone wrong; it needs no reason and offers no chance to fix anything, because there is nothing alleged to fix. A notice responding to a tenant’s breach of the rental agreement is a different instrument altogether, and it is governed by § 33-1368 rather than by the section this page is about. We have not read § 33-1368 for this page and so do not state here what it requires — only that it, and not § 33-1375, is where a breach-based notice comes from.

Serving the wrong one costs time. A landlord whose real complaint is unpaid rent, but who serves a thirty-day termination, has given the tenant a month rather than a demand. A landlord who serves a breach notice when the aim is simply to end the arrangement has turned a no-fault ending into an argument about whether the breach happened. Our guide to Arizona eviction notice laws sets out which notice fits which situation.

This is where a month-to-month arrangement differs most from a fixed term. A one-year lease holds the rent still for a year by definition. A periodic tenancy does not, so the question of how much notice a rent change takes comes up far more often — and in most states the answer is tied to the same periodic-rental-date machinery that governs termination. We have not printed a figure here because the notice a rent increase requires is a separate question from the one § 33-1375 answers; see Arizona rent increase laws for that.

What the agreement can usefully do is record how a change will be communicated and to which address, so that when the question arises the parties are arguing about the number rather than about whether the letter was ever received.

A periodic tenancy is the arrangement where rent changes most often, because there is no fixed term holding the number still. The notice a rent change takes is a separate question from the notice that ends the tenancy, and the two are easily confused — so they are worth reading together. Our guide to Arizona rent increase laws covers how a rent change works on a periodic tenancy here.

The deposit is the other thing a month-to-month tenancy makes harder, because the tenancy can end on short notice and the clock for returning the money starts running the moment it does. Arizona security deposit laws cover what a landlord may deduct and the deadline for accounting for the rest — a deadline that is easy to miss when a tenancy can end at any point in the year rather than at the end of a lease term.

If the notice is ignored, ending a tenancy stops being a paperwork question and becomes a court one. Arizona eviction notice laws set out the notices that come next and how they must be served. A termination notice and an eviction notice are different documents doing different jobs, and serving the wrong one is one of the more common ways a straightforward ending turns into a contested case.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.