Free planning tools

Tools FAQ

• If sales says the Recovery Fund will put me ahead of my contract / pay for upgrades — is that true?

  Not as a freestanding rule. Official roc.az.gov Recovery Fund / FAQ materials say the Registrar’s calculation attempts to make you whole on the contract and that compensable damages cannot result in a net gain to the claimant. A.R.S. § 32-1132.01 centers actual damages on completion / repair within residential property lines (with unpaid-contract netting) and caps individual awards at $30,000; unlicensed handyman quotes are not freestanding Fund proof. Net-gain / upgrade talk also does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the net-gain Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• Which Arizona GC files match Seasons at Baker Farms, Cascades at Prasada, and Monroe Ranch?

  Richmond American Seasons at Baker Farms (Phoenix; sales at 1713 N 79th Drive; from about $456,990–$514,990 with Larimar / Sapphire / Emerald / Moonstone plans Oct 30, 2026) matches Richmond American Construction Inc (#206612; verify live) — keep separate from other Richmond Seasons / Estates pods. Fulton Cascades at Prasada (Surprise; sales at 15657 W Old Oak Ln; from about $543,900 with QMI flagged across six plans) matches Fulton Homes Corporation (#42430; verify live) — Cascades branding is not a separate ROC from other Fulton Prasada series; keep separate from Toll Brothers Sterling Grove and from Mattamy Cascades Buckeye planning. K. Hovnanian Monroe Ranch (Buckeye; Watson Rd & Elwood St; late-phase / limited-remaining from roughly the mid-$300s–low $400s; Godavari QMI example ~$404,990) matches K. Hovnanian Arizona New GC LLC (#277023; verify live) — Great Western branding may still appear. Recovery Fund make-whole language is not freestanding permission to invent a net gain or upgrade ATM. Freddie Mac’s Oct 29, 2026 PMMS put the national 30-year average at 7.24% (15-year 6.60%; next weekly print Nov 5).

• If sales says any ROC suspension unlocks the Recovery Fund for every buyer — is that true?

  Not as a freestanding rule. Official roc.az.gov Recovery Fund materials say that for administrative Recovery Fund claims, the contractor’s residential or dual license must have been suspended or revoked as a direct result of a formal complaint filed by you (civil A.R.S. § 32-1133 paths are different). A neighbor’s discipline stamp is not freestanding permission to invent your Fund award, erase bond sequencing / eligibility / caps, or pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the any-suspension Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If sales says each defect / each room gets its own $30,000 from the Recovery Fund — is that true?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132.01 centers Recovery Fund actual damages on completion / repair within residential property lines and caps the maximum individual award at $30,000; roc.az.gov materials describe a $30,000-per-residence ceiling (with a separate ~$200,000 per-license liability under § 32-1139). Counting rooms, portal tickets, or trades is not freestanding permission to invent stacked $30,000 awards on the same residence. The per-license ceiling is not a personal defect-stack wallet, and defect-stack talk does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the each-defect Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If sales says it was ever a rental / Airbnb / investment so the Recovery Fund is permanently dead — is that true?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132(B)(1) requires individual Recovery Fund claimants to own residential realty and actually occupy or intend to occupy it as a primary residence. Pure investment / rental inventory without that showing is not freestanding Fund eligibility — but a brief rental, Airbnb stay, or investment-label nickname is not freestanding permanent Fund death for every later owner-occupant / intended-occupant fact pattern either. Lease-up after closing is not freestanding landlord Fund eligibility, and rental-history talk does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the rental-history Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• Which Arizona GC files match Century Complete Rancho Mirage Estates, Ashton Woods Rancho Mirage, Laveen Farms, and Moonlight?

  Century Complete Rancho Mirage Estates (Maricopa; sales at 37792 W Patterson St; Hawkeye / Ironwood / Lantana from about $309,990–$339,990 with live San Clemente / Ponte Rd inventory Oct 28, 2026) matches Century Communities Construction of Arizona LLC (#331328; verify live) — keep separate from Meritage Rancho Mirage (#322807 / #166223) and Ashton Woods Rancho Mirage (#284317). Ashton Woods Rancho Mirage (sales at 18970 N Pineta Road; plans from about $391,990–$465,990; ~76 homesites; model unveiling Oct 24–25) matches Ashton Woods Construction LLC (#284317; verify live). Starlight Laveen Farms (Phoenix; 7742 W Saint Kateri Drive; ~7 homes roughly $399,990–$529,990) matches #327845 / #309137. Oakwood Moonlight (Maricopa; 22165 N Dusk Ln; Sonoran ~8 homes low $300s / Crescent ~4 homes high $300s) matches Clayton Properties Group, Inc (#334071; verify live). Brief rental / Airbnb / investment-label talk is not freestanding permanent Recovery Fund death under A.R.S. § 32-1132(B). Each punch-list defect is not freestanding permission to stack another $30,000 Recovery Fund award under A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(D). Any ROC suspension is not freestanding Recovery Fund unlock for every buyer under roc.az.gov administrative Fund materials. Dream Finders–Beazer closed Oct 20, 2026; keep #114625 and #356210 separate and check ROC for any license change. Freddie Mac’s Oct 29, 2026 PMMS put the national 30-year average at 7.24% (15-year 6.60%), down from Oct 22’s 7.32% / 6.68%.

• If sales says the Recovery Fund only covers the house shell — pools, patio covers, and casitas never qualify — is that true?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. §§ 32-1132(B) and 32-1132.01(B)(1) expressly reference failure to adequately build or improve — and completion / repair of — a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines. A hallway “house shell only” paraphrase does not freestandingly ban pools, patio covers, casitas, or other residential appurtenances from Fund eligibility / actual-damages math. Commercial-property damage is separately barred under § 32-1132.01(A), booklet exterior exclusions are not a Fund statute rewrite, and appurtenance-label talk does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the appurtenance Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If sales says my spouse and I each get $30,000 from the Recovery Fund, is that true?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(D) caps the maximum individual Recovery Fund award at $30,000, and roc.az.gov Recovery Fund materials describe a $30,000-per-residence ceiling (with a separate ~$200,000 per-license liability under § 32-1139). Putting spouses or other co-owners on the deed is not freestanding permission to invent a $60,000 household stack. § 32-1132.01(G) bars the contractor’s spouse — a narrow conflict rule, not household stacking math — and co-owner-stack talk does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the co-owners Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If sales says any deposit I paid automatically gets 10% interest from the Recovery Fund, is that true?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(C) measures deposit-only Recovery Fund damages as the exact deposit plus 10% annual interest only when no actual work was performed and no materials were delivered — still not to exceed $30,000. Interest is not freestanding on every Fund award, does not stack above the individual maximum, and does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. When work or materials happened, use completion / repair actual-damages math (including unpaid-contract netting). See the deposit-interest Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If sales says my three Recovery Fund bids equal the award — and unpaid contract balance doesn’t matter — is that true?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(H) measures Recovery Fund actual damages as reasonable completion / repair cost minus unpaid contract price — Ramsey v. AZROC (2016) adopted that netting. Licensed bids prove cost; they do not freestandingly equal the Fund check, erase unpaid-balance subtraction, or guarantee the $30,000 individual maximum. Bid-stack talk also does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the unpaid-contract Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If sales says the Recovery Fund pays hotel, storage, moving, emotional distress, or attorney fees automatically, is that true?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132.01 centers Recovery Fund actual damages on completing or repairing defective / incomplete licensed work within residential property lines. Hotel, storage, temporary housing, moving, emotional distress, and ordinary attorney fees are not freestanding Fund categories — attorney fees are generally excluded except contested cases appealed to superior court, and deposit interest is a narrow no-work rule still capped at $30,000. Extra-damages talk also does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the extra-damages Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If I already got bond, insurance, or settlement money, is the Recovery Fund closed — or does it automatically refund the rest?

  Neither as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132.01(F) deducts amounts recovered from other sources from actual damages and may direct the difference — not to exceed $30,000 — from the Fund when other eligibility gates fit. A partial bond, insurance, warranty, or settlement recovery is not freestanding Fund death, and it is not freestanding permission to invent an automatic full remaining-deposit refund. Other-recovery talk also does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the prior-recovery Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If title is in a living trust, is the Recovery Fund dead — or automatic?

  Neither as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132(B)(3) expressly lists revocable living trusts when the trust owns the damaged residential realty and all trustors occupy or intend to occupy it as their primary residence — so a living-trust deed is not freestanding Fund death. A pure investment / rental trust without those facts is not freestanding Fund eligibility either. Live roc.az.gov Recovery Fund materials repeat the all-trustors gate and discuss a two-year prior-Fund-receipt restriction for trustors. Trust-desk talk also does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the trust-title Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If sales says renters or lessees can’t use the Recovery Fund — or that leasing out my new home automatically opens Fund coverage — is that true?

  Neither as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132(B)(5) expressly lists lessee claimants when the lessee contracts with a residential contractor (or that contractor’s subcontractor), occupies or intends to occupy as a primary residence, and is damaged by inadequate licensed work. A hallway “renter” label is not freestanding Fund death, and converting a closed new home into rental inventory is not freestanding landlord Fund eligibility. Lessee talk also does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the lessee Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If sales says after HOA turnover the association Recovery Fund covers my unit, is that true?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132(B)(4) lets planned communities / unit owners’ associations claim Recovery Fund relief after builder/developer control transfer when common elements are damaged — not every lot-level unit defect. Pre-turnover association talk does not open that path, and HOA Fund talk does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the HOA Recovery Fund covers-unit myth in Learn.

• If title is in an LLC or revocable trust, is the Recovery Fund dead — or automatic?

  Neither as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132 expressly lists LLC and revocable-trust claimants when primary-residence occupancy or intent showings exist — so an LLC on the deed is not freestanding Fund death. A pure investment / rental path without those facts is not freestanding Fund eligibility either. Live roc.az.gov Recovery Fund materials currently describe stricter “all members” LLC wording than the published “at least one” member statute text — verify both. Title structure also does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the LLC-title Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• Is the Recovery Fund claim deadline the same two years from close as the ROC complaint window?

  No. The new-home ROC complaint window under A.R.S. § 12-1365 / § 32-1162 generally runs two years from close or occupancy — a real clock that often precedes administrative Fund relief. Administrative Recovery Fund claims under § 32-1133.01(G) must be submitted within two years after all proceedings, reviews, and appeals connected with the Registrar’s final order terminate. Civil Fund timing under § 32-1133(A) is a separate statute (act or occupancy). Close-of-escrow is not a freestanding shared Fund deadline, and Fund paperwork does not pause § 12-1365. See the Recovery Fund deadline ≠ ROC window myth in Learn.

• If the contractor’s license isn’t active when I file, is the Recovery Fund dead?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132(C)–(D) generally measures “appropriately licensed” at contract signing, first payment, or start of work — not defect-discovery day and not filing-day status alone. A later cancellation can matter for other remedies, but it is not an automatic wipe of every Recovery Fund path. Licensing / Fund paperwork also does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the must-be-licensed-when-filing Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If I have a court judgment, does the Recovery Fund pay automatically?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1133 lets eligible claimants apply for a court order directing Recovery Fund payment after a qualifying final judgment — with Registrar notice, bond pursuit, and hard caps (~$30,000 / $200,000). A judgment stamp is not an automatic Fund check, and roc.az.gov materials generally exclude civil court costs and attorney fees from Fund recovery. Judgment / Fund paperwork also does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the civil-judgment Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If I don’t live there yet — or it’s only a future retirement home — am I automatically ineligible for the Recovery Fund?

  Not as a freestanding rule. A.R.S. § 32-1132(B)(1)(b) requires that an eligible individual claimant actually occupy or intend to occupy the property as a primary residence. In Advantage Pool v. Miles (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2026), the Court of Appeals affirmed that the statute has no temporal qualifier — unrebutted future / retirement primary-residence intent can satisfy that gate on supported facts. Occupancy talk still does not skip bond sequencing, Fund caps (~$30,000 / $200,000), a separate Fund claim, or A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the intend-to-occupy Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If the contractor missed the 15-day Written Directive, do three estimates make the Recovery Fund pay?

  Not as a freestanding rule. Official Arizona ROC materials describe a Written Directive with a corrective-work period of at least 15 days, and Recovery Fund pages discuss three licensed-contractor bids as proof of actual damages on many claims. The complaint-process flowchart still states the Fund process is not automatic — a separate claim must be filed after eligibility gates (often including a final adverse decision and bond sequencing), under roughly $30,000 / $200,000 caps. Day 16 plus three PDF estimates is not a Fund check and does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the Written Directive / 15-day Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If I win my ROC complaint, does the Recovery Fund pay automatically?

  Not as a freestanding rule. Official Arizona ROC complaint-process materials state that the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund process is not automatic — a claim separate from the complaint must be filed after a final decision against a residential contractor. Staff still review eligibility and actual damages under roughly $30,000 / $200,000 caps, and many administrative paths still require bond claim sequencing. A Written Directive or complaint “win” is not a Fund check and does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the ROC-complaint-win Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If my home warranty / 2-10 / builder booklet denied a claim, will the Recovery Fund pay?

  Not as a freestanding rule. Arizona’s Court of Appeals held in Gordon v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors (2019) that breach of a home warranty policy is not a claim arising from contractor-regulation violations — so it is not automatic Recovery Fund eligibility. Fund paths center on actual damages from incomplete or defective licensed workmanship, plus bond / discipline gates and ~$30,000 / $200,000 caps. A denial is dispute evidence — not a Fund check — and does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the home-warranty-breach Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• Does a Recovery Fund balance around $28 million mean I’ll get every dollar back?

  No. October 2026 Holtzman coverage quoted a Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund balance on the order of $28 million. That is reported statewide Fund assets — not an individual award. Live caps remain roughly $30,000 per claimant / $200,000 per residential contractor license (often prorated when many claims share one license). A healthy Fund balance also does not freestandingly skip bond sequencing or pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the Fund-balance myth in Learn.

• Can I skip the contractor’s license bond and go straight to the Arizona Recovery Fund?

  No as a complete picture. roc.az.gov Recovery Fund materials generally require a claim against the contractor’s license bond and a final bond determination before many administrative Fund claims. A written surety claim can satisfy that sequencing in reported cases — it is not a freestanding Fund jump, and it is not a universal rule that every homeowner must sue the bonding company in superior court first. Bond / Fund paperwork also does not pause A.R.S. § 12-1365. See the skip-bond Recovery Fund myth in Learn.

• If a contractor cancels their ROC license or files bankruptcy, are Arizona claims automatically dead?

  No as a complete picture. October 2026 Holtzman coverage described cancelled licenses and Chapter 7 filings. ROC leadership said bankruptcy does not stop investigations, and Recovery Fund caps (~$30,000 / $200,000 per license) are not automatic full-deposit refunds. See the cancelled-license / bankruptcy myth in Learn.

• Which AZ HomeShield tool should I use first?

  Start with the myth checker if a sales or warranty talking point sounds off, then use the deadline calculator to put month-11 and two-year ROC dates on your calendar, and keep the documentation checklist running as issues appear.

• Does the myth checker cover Purchaser Dwelling Act talking points?

  Yes. It includes claims about skipping PDA notice before suing, whether notice pauses repose, whether you must accept repair and cash offers, the outdated 90-day wait shorthand, and escrow’s closing PDA handout — each with a deeper Learn article link.

• Does the myth checker cover implied-warranty disclaimer claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks the claim that initialing a purchase-contract disclaimer or limited warranty wipes out Arizona’s implied warranty of workmanship and habitability, with a deeper Zambrano (2022) Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover second-owner / subsequent-purchaser claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks the claim that only the first buyer has warranty rights against the builder, with a deeper Richards v. Powercraft Homes (1984) Learn guide on latent-defect limits for subsequent purchasers.

• Does the myth checker cover Arizona 1 / 2 / 6-year statutory warranty claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks the out-of-state ladder myth and related § 12-1361 “8-year statutory mechanical warranty” claims, linking to Learn guides on Arizona's real stack: express booklet stages, a two-year ROC window, non-waivable implied warranty, PDA process, and eight/nine-year repose.

• Does the myth checker cover “§ 12-1361 is Arizona’s 8-year statutory warranty” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that A.R.S. § 12-1361 creates an 8-year mechanical warranty or freestanding statutory coverage schedule — that section is Purchaser Dwelling Act definitions, not a booklet ladder — with a deeper PDA § 12-1361 Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “quick move-in means the warranty already started” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that finished inventory / Ready Now homes already burned booklet or ROC clocks, and that rate buydowns waive claims — with a deeper QMI warranty-clock Learn guide separating booklet, § 12-1365 close/occupancy, and § 12-552 repose.

• Does the myth checker cover “call the manufacturer / chase the sub — we’re not responsible” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks manufacturer and subcontractor handoffs against R4-9-108 workmanship, the two-year ROC window, and Yanni (2013) — which generally keeps residential implied-warranty claims pointed at the builder-vendor — with a deeper Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “file only with the 2-10 / warranty company” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that a third-party warranty administrator (2-10 HBW, RWC, and similar) is Arizona’s only remedy against the licensed GC’s workmanship path, the two-year ROC window, Zambrano implied warranty, and Purchaser Dwelling Act notice — with a deeper third-party warranty admin Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “we have arbitration — you can’t file with the ROC” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that a purchase-contract arbitration clause bars Arizona Registrar complaints against A.R.S. § 12-1365’s two-year new-home window, R4-9-108 workmanship standards, and Purchaser Dwelling Act notice — with a deeper arbitration-blocks-ROC Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “use our preferred lender or lose the warranty” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that preferred-lender financing is required or that declining the builder’s lender voids warranty, ROC, implied warranty, or PDA paths — with a deeper preferred-lender warranty Learn guide separating financing incentives from Arizona claim layers.

• Does the myth checker cover “missed a filter / skipped maintenance voids the warranty” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that a missed HVAC filter or other homeowner maintenance voids every Arizona remedy — separating express / manufacturer neglect exclusions from ROC, R4-9-108, Zambrano implied warranty, and PDA notice — with a deeper maintenance voids warranty Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “you fixed it yourself — so warranty / ROC are gone” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that any DIY repair, temporary patch, or unauthorized owner work voids every Arizona remedy — separating express booklet alteration exclusions and evidence needs from ROC, R4-9-108, Zambrano implied warranty, and PDA notice — with a deeper DIY repair voids warranty Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “sales promised it — so it’s automatically in the warranty” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that every sales-office or model-home promise is automatic express coverage — and the opposite claim that sales talk never matters — separating written addenda and booklet terms from Beazer Homes Arizona v. Goldwater ROC jurisdiction over certain inducement misrepresentations and from ROC / implied-warranty / PDA layers, with a deeper sales-promise warranty Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “monsoon / act of God — so the builder warranty is gone” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that monsoon rain, wind, or act-of-God language automatically erases Arizona warranty, ROC, workmanship, implied-warranty, or PDA paths — separating real express weather exclusions and insurance claims from flashing, grading, drainage, and seal defects weather can expose — with a deeper act-of-God / monsoon warranty Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “wait for HOA turnover — the association will handle your warranty” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that homeowners should pause ROC, booklet, or PDA clocks until HOA developer turnover — separating real Homeowners’ Association Dwelling Action (HADA) paths for many common-area and association-maintained items from lot-level § 12-1365, booklet, implied-warranty, and PDA calendars — with a deeper HOA-turnover warranty Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “we’re still working your tickets — so the ROC clock is paused” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that open builder warranty tickets, reschedule loops, or “please don’t file yet” talk automatically toll Arizona’s two-year new-home ROC window — separating portal workflow and PDA civil-track tolling from A.R.S. § 12-1365’s close-or-occupancy calendar — with a deeper open-warranty-tickets pause ROC Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “finish the one-year warranty before filing ROC”?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that Arizona owners must exhaust the builder’s one-year limited warranty before an ROC complaint — booklet process is not a statutory § 12-1365 gate — with a deeper must-exhaust-warranty-before-ROC Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “ROC starts when I discover the defect” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that Arizona’s two-year new-home ROC window runs from latent-defect discovery — against A.R.S. § 12-1365 and § 32-1162’s close-or-occupancy start — with a deeper ROC discovery-rule Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “HSR cleared — so Dream Finders already owns Beazer” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that Hart-Scott-Rodino early termination or antitrust clearance means Dream Finders already owns Beazer or that Arizona warranty desks flipped — HSR clearance is a regulatory milestone, not closing or a rewrite of Beazer #114625 vs Dream Finders #356210 — with a deeper HSR clearance ≠ closed Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “portal ticket / email = PDA notice” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that a warranty-portal ticket or ordinary email already satisfies Purchaser Dwelling Act notice — against A.R.S. § 12-1363(A)’s certified-mail, return-receipt requirement — with a deeper PDA email / portal-notice Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “closing credit = warranty / ROC done” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that a closing credit, repair allowance, or escrow holdback automatically ends Arizona warranty, ROC, implied-warranty, or Purchaser Dwelling Act paths — credits are purchase math, not a freestanding wipe of § 12-1365 / R4-9-108 / Zambrano / PDA — with a deeper closing-credit ends claim Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “we already fixed it / you signed the completion form” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that one completed repair visit or a signed work-order form freestandingly ends Arizona ROC, implied-warranty, or Purchaser Dwelling Act paths when the same construction defect returns — with a deeper already-fixed-closes-claim Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “drainage / grading is homeowner responsibility forever” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that landscape packages or “drainage is on you forever” booklet language freestandingly end Arizona ROC, implied-warranty, or Purchaser Dwelling Act paths for as-built grading defects — with a deeper drainage-grading-landscape Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “Beazer stockholders approved — so Dream Finders already closed”?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that a Cascades Oct 20 public hearing notice freestandingly equals Council approval or selling inventory — with a deeper public-hearing-notice Learn guide. It also covers master-plan-approval-as-selling, Beazer stockholder-vote, conditional note-redemption, and HSR-clearance-as-closing talk.

• Does the myth checker cover “missed the 11-month inspection so year-one / ROC are waived”?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that skipping an 11-month builder walkthrough freestandingly waives year-one claims or Arizona ROC / implied-warranty / PDA paths — with a deeper missed-11-month-inspection Learn guide. Related merger-talking-point checks cover conditional Beazer note-redemption and verbal superintendent “we’ll fix it” talk.

• Does the myth checker cover “cosmetic / within tolerance — can’t file with the ROC” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that a builder’s cosmetic / within-tolerance label freestandingly bars Arizona ROC workmanship complaints or rewrites R4-9-108 — with a deeper cosmetic-tolerance-bars-ROC Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “three repair attempts before ROC” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that a builder’s three-attempt / don’t-file-yet repair preference freestandingly pauses Arizona’s two-year new-home ROC window or replaces Purchaser Dwelling Act certified-mail notice — with a deeper three-repair-attempts-before-ROC Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “after year one, only structural remains” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that an expired year-one express booklet stage freestandingly leaves only structural coverage and wipes Arizona’s two-year ROC window, R4-9-108 workmanship standards, Zambrano implied warranty, and Purchaser Dwelling Act notice — with a deeper year-one-ends / structural-only Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “warranty denied — so you’re done / can’t file ROC” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that a builder warranty denial letter automatically ends Arizona ROC, implied-warranty, or Purchaser Dwelling Act paths — denials are booklet process, not a freestanding wipe of § 12-1365 / R4-9-108 / Zambrano / PDA — with a deeper warranty-denial ends claim Learn guide. It also fact-checks “we’ll fix it under warranty after closing — so skip the punch list” talk with a dedicated warranty-after-closing punch-list Learn guide, “exclusive right to repair — so you can’t file ROC / get a second opinion” talk with a dedicated exclusive-repair blocks ROC Learn guide, “you need a lawyer before you can file with the ROC” talk with a dedicated attorney-required ROC complaint Learn guide, “file homeowners insurance first — then warranty / ROC” talk with a dedicated insurance-first before warranty Learn guide, “you only have 10 days after move-in for all warranty / ROC claims” talk with a dedicated ten-day surface warranty Learn guide, and “register the warranty online or all Arizona rights are void” talk with a dedicated warranty registration Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “repose starts only on the CO date” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks certificate-of-occupancy-only talking points against A.R.S. § 12-552(H), which uses the first of first use, first availability for use, or final governmental inspection — with a deeper substantial-completion Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “it passed city inspection” / green-tag claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that a municipal green tag or certificate of occupancy ends ROC workmanship, booklet stages, or the two-year complaint window — against R4-9-108 and A.R.S. § 12-1365 — with a deeper passed-city-inspection Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover Building Confidence vs a formal ROC complaint?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that an informal Building Confidence visit replaces a formal ROC complaint or Recovery Fund path — against official roc.az.gov program copy and A.R.S. § 12-1365 — with a deeper Building Confidence Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “you must accept the builder’s PDA repair / cash offer” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks compressed talking points that force cash acceptance, a release solely for PDA repairs, or an end to inadequate-repair claims — against A.R.S. § 12-1363(C)/(E)/(F) — with a deeper PDA repair-offer Learn guide.

• Does the myth checker cover “I closed, so I accepted the house as-is” claims?

  Yes. It fact-checks claims that final walkthrough signatures or closing escrow waive latent defects, ROC workmanship, implied warranty after Zambrano, or Purchaser Dwelling Act paths — with a deeper closing as-is acceptance Learn guide.

• Where can I read a single plain-language myths overview?

  Open the Builder warranty myths Learn guide for a checklist of common phrases — inspections voiding coverage, punch-list waivers, cosmetic labels, manufacturer / subcontractor handoffs, third-party warranty-admin sole-path claims, arbitration blocks ROC claims, preferred-lender pressure, maintenance-log denials, DIY-repair denials, sales-promise denials, act-of-God / monsoon denials, insurance-first-before-warranty gates, ten-day-surface-only warranty talk, year-one-ends / structural-only talk, three-repair-attempts-before-ROC talk, cosmetic-tolerance-bars-ROC talk, already-fixed / completion-form claim-close talk, drainage-grading / landscape-voids-warranty talk, verbal-superintendent-promise / don’t-open-a-ticket talk, missed-11-month-inspection waiver talk, wait-60-days / settle-in-first talk, orientation-form-only / not-on-the-form waivers, warranty-registration / activate-or-void talk, HOA-turnover delays, open-ticket pause talk, finish-year-one-before-ROC talk, ROC-starts-on-discovery talk, HSR-clearance-as-closing talk, portal-email-as-PDA-notice talk, closing-credit claim wipes, warranty-denial claim wipes, warranty-after-closing punch-list skip talk, exclusive-repair ROC blocks, attorney-required ROC filing myths, QMI clock talk, closing as-is talk, § 12-1361 “statutory warranty” claims, PDA repair/cash myths, Building Confidence shortcuts, green-tag / CO myths, second-owner myths, PDA timing, CO-only repose myths, and more — then return here to check a specific phrase.

• Do these tools replace the AZ HomeShield mobile apps?

  No. The web tools help you plan and fact-check. The apps are built to hold the living record — photos, tickets, and timelines — in one exportable place.

• Are these warranty tools legal advice?

  No. They are educational estimators and checklists. Verify deadlines and claim paths against your builder booklet, purchase contract, current Arizona statutes, and professional advice.