A. While engaged as a qualifying party for a licensee, the qualifying party may not take other employment that would conflict with the person's duties as qualifying party or conflict with the person's ability to adequately supervise the work performed by the licensee. Such person may act in the capacity of the qualifying party for one additional licensee if one of the following conditions exists:
1. There is a common ownership of at least twenty-five percent of each licensed entity for which the person acts in a qualifying capacity.
2. One licensee is a subsidiary of another licensee for which the same person acts in a qualifying capacity. For the purposes of this paragraph, "subsidiary" means a corporation of which at least twenty-five percent is owned by the other licensee.
B. While engaged as the qualifying party for a licensee, the qualifying party is responsible for any violation of this chapter by the licensee for licensure regulatory purposes under this chapter. This subsection does not impose personal liability on the qualifying party for a licensee's violation of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case:
Colberg v. Rellinger, 770 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
Colberg v. Rellinger, 770 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 25× “We also conclude that a homeowner has no claim for negligent supervision against the contractor's qualifying party, under A.R.S. § 32-1127. Finally, we conclude that these two claims do not arise out of a contract *44 within the meaning of A.”
Clout Constr. v. Lb contracting/bryant (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “Although claiming such a right under A.R.S. § 32-1127(B), that statute deals with responsibility for licensing violations, and does not give Bryant a right to intervene.”
Kost v. Aroc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 32-1127. 2 KOST v. AROC et al. Decision of the Court Arizona Corporation Commission listed Kost as an officer, and an amendment to those articles of incorporation was required to complete the disassociation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1127(B) — 1 case
Clout Constr. v. Lb contracting/bryant (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“Although claiming such a right under A.R.S. § 32-1127(B), that statute deals with responsibility for licensing violations, and does not give Bryant a right to intervene.”
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.