Cited by

¶ 19 (2008); (“We believe that it is more likely than not that a mailed notice will be delivered by the U.S. Postal Service.”); see also In re Marriage of Vargas v. Vargas, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0287, 2024 WL 4751554, at *2, ¶ 14 (Ariz. App. Nov.

This certificate creates a strong presumption of receipt, because courts in Arizona have a “long-held understanding that mail properly sent will reach its destination.” ¶ 10 (2008)

See id.; see also Trantor, 179 Ariz. at 300; ¶ 8 (2008) (“The denial of receipt of mail creates an issue of fact that the factfinder must resolve to determine if delivery actually occurred.”); ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (noting the reviewing court is “not the appropriate forum for resolving factual disputes” and thus the appellat

a court does not resolve factual disputes between the parties on an undeveloped record."); ¶ 1, 239, ¶ 22 (2008) (whether notice of claim was timely may be a material issue of fact to be resolved on remand); Thompson, 226 Ariz. at 46-47, ¶ 14; Simon v. Maricopa Med.

¶ 8 (2008) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); ¶ 22, n.3 (2003) (“The presumption is rebutted .

our supreme court stated “that an ‘actual receipt’ requirement .

P.3d 1169 (2008), our supreme court summarized the common-law mail delivery rule: We have long recognized what is best termed a “mail delivery rule.

Ctr., ¶ 20, ¶ 19, (filing of notice of claim may be accomplished through regular mail); Ariz. R. Civ.

-72 (2008) ("[Although a denial of receipt rebuts the legal presumption that a piece of mail was received, a factfinder may still infer from the fact of mailing that the mail did reach its destination.”).

¶ 46 , (comparing A.R.S.

P. 4.1(h); , (“filing” of notice of claim against state means actual delivery of such notice to the Attorney General).