Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 34.35.020 (2026)
Sufficiency in lien notice or pleadings
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 34.35.020. Sufficiency in lien notice or pleadings.
(a) A mistake in formality or lack of statement in the lien notice or the pleadings is not ground for dismissal or unnecessary delay in an action to foreclose a lien.
(b) Substantial compliance with the law relating to the contents of the lien notice is considered sufficient, if the notice satisfactorily shows the name of the claimant, the amount of the demand, the time of the employment, the property sought to be charged with the lien sufficient for identification, and the name of the owner or reputed owner of the property.
(c) The inclusion of nonlienable items in the amount of the claimant's demand or error in the terms and conditions of the contract of employment, if there is a contract of employment, or other error in the lien notice, made in good faith, is not considered material, unless the error affects the substantial rights of the adverse party, acquired in good faith without notice.
(d) The lien notice and pleadings may be amended at any time before judgment. If a material statement or averment is omitted or misstated, this is ground for a reasonable delay or continuance to enable opposing parties to meet the amendment, and a nonsuit or dismissal may not be entertained in the action except upon the merits of the cause.
(a) A mistake in formality or lack of statement in the lien notice or the pleadings is not ground for dismissal or unnecessary delay in an action to foreclose a lien.
(b) Substantial compliance with the law relating to the contents of the lien notice is considered sufficient, if the notice satisfactorily shows the name of the claimant, the amount of the demand, the time of the employment, the property sought to be charged with the lien sufficient for identification, and the name of the owner or reputed owner of the property.
(c) The inclusion of nonlienable items in the amount of the claimant's demand or error in the terms and conditions of the contract of employment, if there is a contract of employment, or other error in the lien notice, made in good faith, is not considered material, unless the error affects the substantial rights of the adverse party, acquired in good faith without notice.
(d) The lien notice and pleadings may be amended at any time before judgment. If a material statement or averment is omitted or misstated, this is ground for a reasonable delay or continuance to enable opposing parties to meet the amendment, and a nonsuit or dismissal may not be entertained in the action except upon the merits of the cause.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1966–2012 · leading case: H.A.M.S. Co. v. Elec. Contractors of Alaska, Inc., 563 P.2d 258 (Alaska 1977).
H.A.M.S. Co. v. Elec. Contractors of Alaska, Inc., 563 P.2d 258 (Alaska 1977). “Subsections (a) and (b) of AS 34.35.020 provide: (a) No mistake in formality or lack of statement in the lien notice or the pleadings is ground for dismissal or unnecessary delay in an action to foreclose a lien.”
Moores v. Alaska Metal Bldgs., Inc., 448 P.2d 581 (Alaska 1968). “As we have previously pointed out, nowhere in the trial court’s findings of fact or-conclusions of law are AS 34.35.020 (c)’s good faith-substantial-rights-of-the-adverse-party criteria mentioned.”
Stephenson v. Ketchikan Spruce Mills, Inc., 412 P.2d 496 (Alaska 1966). “(b) Substantial compliance with the law relating to the contents of the lien notice is considered sufficient, if the notice satisfactorily shows the name of the claimant, the amount of his demand, the time of his employment, the property sought to be charged with the lien…”
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Nat'l Rural Utils. Coop. Fin. Corp. (Naknek Elec. Ass'n), 471 B.R. 225 (Bankr. D. Alaska 2012). “AS 34.35.020(a). 15 . AS 34.35.020(b)-(d).”
— Alaska Stat. § 34.35.020(a) — 1 case
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Nat'l Rural Utils. Coop. Fin. Corp. (Naknek Elec. Ass'n), 471 B.R. 225 (Bankr. D. Alaska 2012). “AS 34.35.020(a). 15 . AS 34.35.020(b)-(d).”
— Alaska Stat. § 34.35.020(b) — 2 cases
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Nat'l Rural Utils. Coop. Fin. Corp. (Naknek Elec. Ass'n), 471 B.R. 225 (Bankr. D. Alaska 2012). “AS 34.35.020(a). 15 . AS 34.35.020(b)-(d).”
Moores v. Alaska Metal Bldgs., Inc., 448 P.2d 581 (Alaska 1968). “As we have previously pointed out, nowhere in the trial court’s findings of fact or-conclusions of law are AS 34.35.020 (c)’s good faith-substantial-rights-of-the-adverse-party criteria mentioned.”
— Alaska Stat. § 34.35.020(c) — 2 cases
Moores v. Alaska Metal Bldgs., Inc., 448 P.2d 581 (Alaska 1968). “As we have previously pointed out, nowhere in the trial court’s findings of fact or-conclusions of law are AS 34.35.020 (c)’s good faith-substantial-rights-of-the-adverse-party criteria mentioned.”
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Nat'l Rural Utils. Coop. Fin. Corp. (Naknek Elec. Ass'n), 471 B.R. 225 (Bankr. D. Alaska 2012). “AS 34.35.020(a). 15 . AS 34.35.020(b)-(d).”
— Alaska Stat. § 34.35.020(d) — 2 cases
Moores v. Alaska Metal Bldgs., Inc., 448 P.2d 581 (Alaska 1968). “As we have previously pointed out, nowhere in the trial court’s findings of fact or-conclusions of law are AS 34.35.020 (c)’s good faith-substantial-rights-of-the-adverse-party criteria mentioned.”
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Nat'l Rural Utils. Coop. Fin. Corp. (Naknek Elec. Ass'n), 471 B.R. 225 (Bankr. D. Alaska 2012). “AS 34.35.020(a). 15 . AS 34.35.020(b)-(d).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.