Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 32
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1153 (2026)

Proof of license as prerequisite to civil action

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No contractor as defined in section 32-1101 shall act as agent or commence or maintain any action in any court of the state for collection of compensation for the performance of any act for which a license is required by this chapter without alleging and proving that the contracting party whose contract gives rise to the claim was a duly licensed contractor when the contract sued upon was entered into and when the alleged cause of action arose.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc., 41 P.3d 651 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc., 41 P.3d 651 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 38× “The legislature enacted A.R.S. § 32-1153 "to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.”
Smith v. Pinnamaneni, 254 P.3d 409 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 27× “failed to prove it was properly licensed in compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1153. 5 We disagree. As we explain, a contractor’s lack of licensure is an affirmative defense subject to waiver, and Defendants waived this defense by failing to raise it in the arbitration.”
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Prods., Inc., 81 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 26× “For the fokowing reasons, we conclude that the Bentivegnas’ breach of contract and breach of warranty claims are not barred by the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, but that A.R.S. § 32-1153 does not support their claim for restitution.”
B & P Cpncrete, Inc. v. Turnbow, 561 P.2d 329 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 28× “The trial court dismissed the action following a motion for summary judgment on the ground that B & P was not a duly licensed contractor and was barred from suit by reason of A.R.S. § 32-1153. The complaint of B & P alleges, in substance, that in March, 1972, Appellees Hutcheson…”
Aesthetic Prop. Maint., Inc. v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 900 P.2d 1210 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 18× “We are asked to decide whether substantial compliance with our contractor licensing statute can satisfy the licensing prerequisite to a civil action under A.R.S. § 32-1153. We hold that it can. I.”
Baker v. Dolphin Beach Rental & Mgmt., LLC, 233 P.3d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 22× “Because we conclude that A.R.S. § 32-1153 does not apply to contracting work in Mexico, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Wb, the Bldg. Co., LLC. v. El Destino, 257 P.3d 1182 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “”) section 32-1151 (2008) and that WB was barred from obtaining relief pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1153 (2008). WB responded that a stay of arbitration would be inappropriate as the issue of whether the contract was valid was a matter for the arbitrator alone to decide, and not one…”
Earthworks Contracting, Ltd. v. Mendel-Allison Constr. of California, Inc., 804 P.2d 831 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 13× “Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Earthworks was precluded by A.R.S. § 32-1153 1 from receiving any compensation for any work it had performed on the project because it lacked a license.”
Twin Peaks Constr. Inc. v. Weatherguard Metal Constr., Inc., 154 P.3d 378 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 16× “Twin Peaks argues a conflict exists between A.R.S. § 32-1153 and A.R.S. § 32-1154, and both the Registrar and the superi- or court incorrectly interpreted § 32-1153 to preclude Twin Peaks’s asserted defense based on that statute.”
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Off. v. Downie, 189 P.3d 393 (Ariz. 2008). · cites it 4× “[7] The concern has been raised that requiring defendants to pay as restitution the full amount of consideration received for their services may encourage homeowners to knowingly hire unlicensed contractors because upon conviction for contracting without a license, the defendant…”
All Am. Sch. Supply Co. v. Slavens, 609 P.2d 46 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 4× “The resolution of the scope of the C-23 license held by All American is crucial to their recovery for if not properly licensed, A.R.S. § 32-1153 * would totally preclude their suit.”
Marston's Inc. v. Roman Catholic Church of Phoenix, 644 P.2d 244 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 4× “Marston’s claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because Marston’s had failed to allege and prove that it held a contractor’s license as it was required to do under A.R.S. § 32-1153. Marston’s then filed an amended complaint, alleging…”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1153(1996) — 1 case
Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc., 41 P.3d 651 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “The legislature enacted A.R.S. § 32-1153 "to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.”
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.