A. In this section:
1. "Dwelling" means real property upon which there has been constructed or is to be constructed any building, structure or improvement which is designed for either single one-family or single two-family residential purposes or activities related thereto, including an apartment in a horizontal property regime or other condominium.
2. "Owner-occupant" means a natural person who:
(a) Prior to commencement of the construction, alteration, repair or improvement holds legal or equitable title to the dwelling by a deed or contract for the conveyance of real property recorded with the county recorder of the county in which the dwelling is located, and
(b) Resides or intends to reside in the dwelling at least thirty days during the twelve-month period immediately following completion of the construction, alteration, repair or improvement and does not intend to sell or lease the dwelling to others. Residence in the dwelling or intent to reside in the dwelling may be evidenced by the following or other physical acts:
(i) The placing of his or her personal belongings and furniture in the dwelling, and
(ii) Occupancy either by the person or members of his or her family. A single act shall not establish a person as an owner-occupant if such person permits exclusive occupancy by other than members of his or her family for other than temporary purposes thereby negating his or her intent to reside in the dwelling primarily for use as his or her home.
B. No lien provided for in this article shall be allowed or recorded by the person claiming a lien against the dwelling of a person who became an owner-occupant prior to the construction, alteration, repair or improvement, except by a person having executed in writing a contract directly with the owner-occupant.
C. Any provision of an agreement made or entered into by an owner-occupant which waives the provisions of this section is void.
Notes of Decisions
O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley, 613 P.2d 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 20× “(emphasis added) Appellants first contend that A.R.S. § 33-1002 as it existed in 1976 and 1977 applied to the construction of new dwellings.”
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger, 224 P.3d 988 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “See AR.S. § 33-1002. It also considered the differing federal court interpretations of statutes like A.”
Williamson v. PVORBIT, INC., 263 P.3d 77 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “¶ 13 A.R.S. § 33-1002.A.2 states: “Owner-Occupant” means a natural person who: (a) Prior to commencement of the construction, alteration, repair or improvement holds legal or equitable title to the dwelling by a deed or contract for the conveyance of real property recorded with…”
R & M Oxford Constr., Inc. v. Smith, 836 P.2d 454 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 8× “Arizona Revised Statutes section 33-1002 provides: B. No lien provided for in this article shall be allowed or recorded by the person claiming a lien against the dwelling of a person who became an owner-occupant prior to the construction, alteration, repair or improvement,…”
Marco Crane & Rigging Co. v. Masaryk, 341 P.3d 490 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 18× “DISCUSSION ¶ 7 Masaryk appeals the superior court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Marco’s lien foreclosure claim, arguing that she was shielded against Marco’s lien as an “owner-occupant” under AR.”
Morris v. Achen Const. Co., Inc., 747 P.2d 1206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 33-1002(B). A.R.S. § 33-420(A) provides a remedy for an invalid lien, and it is distinct from the one provided in § 33-420(C).”
Guarriello v. Sunstate Equip. Corp., 931 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “Sunstate asserts, however, that because the record does not contain proof of a recorded deed, as required by § 33-1002(A)(2)(a), the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.”
Paul C. Helmick Corp. v. Lucky Chance Mining Co., 618 P.2d 252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“§ 33-981(A), before the minor 1979 changes, read as follows: Except as provided in §§ 33-1002 and 33-1003, every person who labors or furnishes materials, machinery, fixtures or tools in the construction, alteration or repair of any building, or other structure or improvement…”
David Kester v. Citimortgage, Inc., 709 F. App'x 869 (9th Cir. 2017).
“3d 77, 80 (2011) (concluding that subcontractor’s lien was “invalid” on the basis of A.R.S. § 33-1002’s owner-occupant exception without any materiality analysis); Delmastro & Eells v.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1002(2): 1 case
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger, 224 P.3d 988 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“See AR.S. § 33-1002. It also considered the differing federal court interpretations of statutes like A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1002(A): 1 case
O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley, 613 P.2d 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“(emphasis added) Appellants first contend that A.R.S. § 33-1002 as it existed in 1976 and 1977 applied to the construction of new dwellings.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1002(A)(2): 2 cases
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger, 224 P.3d 988 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“See AR.S. § 33-1002. It also considered the differing federal court interpretations of statutes like A.”
Marco Crane & Rigging Co. v. Masaryk, 341 P.3d 490 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“DISCUSSION ¶ 7 Masaryk appeals the superior court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Marco’s lien foreclosure claim, arguing that she was shielded against Marco’s lien as an “owner-occupant” under AR.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1002(A)(2)(a): 1 case
Guarriello v. Sunstate Equip. Corp., 931 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“Sunstate asserts, however, that because the record does not contain proof of a recorded deed, as required by § 33-1002(A)(2)(a), the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1002(A)(l): 1 case
O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley, 613 P.2d 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“(emphasis added) Appellants first contend that A.R.S. § 33-1002 as it existed in 1976 and 1977 applied to the construction of new dwellings.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1002(B): 5 cases
R & M Oxford Constr., Inc. v. Smith, 836 P.2d 454 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“Arizona Revised Statutes section 33-1002 provides: B. No lien provided for in this article shall be allowed or recorded by the person claiming a lien against the dwelling of a person who became an owner-occupant prior to the construction, alteration, repair or improvement,…”
O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley, 613 P.2d 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“(emphasis added) Appellants first contend that A.R.S. § 33-1002 as it existed in 1976 and 1977 applied to the construction of new dwellings.”
Marco Crane & Rigging Co. v. Masaryk, 341 P.3d 490 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“DISCUSSION ¶ 7 Masaryk appeals the superior court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Marco’s lien foreclosure claim, arguing that she was shielded against Marco’s lien as an “owner-occupant” under AR.”
Morris v. Achen Const. Co., Inc., 747 P.2d 1206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“A.R.S. § 33-1002(B). A.R.S. § 33-420(A) provides a remedy for an invalid lien, and it is distinct from the one provided in § 33-420(C).”
Guarriello v. Sunstate Equip. Corp., 931 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“Sunstate asserts, however, that because the record does not contain proof of a recorded deed, as required by § 33-1002(A)(2)(a), the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.”
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.