Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-981 (2026)

Lien for labor; professional services or materials used in construction, alteration or repair of structures; preliminary twenty day notice; exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as provided in sections 33-1002 and 33-1003, every person who labors or furnishes professional services, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools in the construction, alteration or repair of any building, or other structure or improvement, shall have a lien on such building, structure or improvement for the work or labor done or professional services, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished, whether the work was done or the articles were furnished at the instance of the owner of the building, structure or improvement, or his agent.

B. Every contractor, subcontractor, architect, builder or other person having charge or control of the construction, alteration or repair, either wholly or in part, of any building, structure or improvement is the agent of the owner for the purposes of this article, and the owner shall be liable for the reasonable value of labor or materials furnished to his agent.

C. A person who is required to be licensed as a contractor but who does not hold a valid license as such contractor issued pursuant to title 32, chapter 10 shall not have the lien rights provided for in this section.

D. A person required to give preliminary twenty day notice pursuant to section 33-992.01 is entitled to enforce the lien rights provided for in this section only if he has given such notice and has made proof of service pursuant to section 33-992.02.

E. A person who furnishes professional services but who does not hold a valid certificate of registration issued pursuant to title 32, chapter 1 shall not have the lien rights provided for in this section.

F. A person who furnishes professional services is entitled to enforce the lien rights provided for in this section only if such person has an agreement with the owner of the property or with an architect, an engineer or a contractor who has an agreement with the owner of the property.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 71 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2024 · leading case: Brown Wholesale Elec. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 659 P.2d 1299 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brown Wholesale Elec. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 659 P.2d 1299 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 33× “Appellant and Case filed a joint answer denying the allegations of the complaint and, in addition, raised four affirmative defenses: (I) failure to state a claim; (2) statute of frauds; (3) failure to give notice as required by A.R.S. §§ 33-981 — 1006; and (4) limitation of…”

Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, 283 P.3d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “¶ 19 Arizona’s mechanic’s liens statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-981 to -1008 (West 2012), protect laborers and materialmen (collectively, “Laborers”), who generally lack privity of contract with a property owner, by providing them with a lien on real property for the amount of labor and…”

Performance Funding, L.L.C. v. Arizona Pipe Trade Trust Funds, 49 P.3d 293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 16× “Upon the parties’ stipulation, the trial court entered judgment pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on the issue of the validity of the Trust Funds’ liens.”

Adams Tree Serv., Inc. v. Transamerica Title Ins., 511 P.2d 658 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 18× “Arizona has three lien statutes which may provide relief to one who has furnished labor or materials to real property: A.R.S. § 33-981 for labor or materials used in construction, alteration or repair of structures; 1 A.”

B. J. Cecil Trucking, Inc. v. Tiffany Constr. Co., 597 P.2d 184 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 11× “It is appellees’ position, on the other hand, that the legislature did not intend to accord a right of action under A.”

Spielman-Fond, Inc. v. Hanson's, Inc., 379 F. Supp. 997 (D. Ariz. 1973). · cites it 6× “The sole issue presented in this action is whether the Arizona statutes relating to mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens, A.R.S. § 33-981 et seq., are in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

Stratton v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 683 P.2d 327 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “However, A.R.S. § 33-981(13) in itself neither creates actual agency nor permits the subcontractor or material supplier to seek a personal judgment against the owner.”

Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting Co., Inc., 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “2d 81, 84-85 (1966) (finding owner subject to mechanic’s lien because person hiring labor and materials was obligated to make improvements under contract with owner and acted as an agent within the meaning of § 33-981). ¶ 19 This is not a case where the improvements at issue…”

Wahl v. Sw. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 467 P.2d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 10× “§ 33-992 construed together with A.R.S. §§ 33-981, subsec. A 2 and 33-991 3 that for each such con *95 tract there would be a separate time of “commencement” of construction, dependent upon the date construction was actually commenced on the particular building or lot involved.”

Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 263 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 33-981(D), 33-992.01(B). A lien claimant’s preliminary notice must include both “[a] general description of the labor, professional services, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished or to be furnished and an estimate of the total price thereof,” § 33-992.”

Barry Props. v. Fick Bros. Roofing Co., 353 A.2d 222 (Md. 1976). · cites it 2× “In reaching this conclusion we have taken account of the United States Supreme Court's summary affirmance of a three-judge District Court's holding that Arizona's mechanics' lien law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-981 to -1006 *34 (1974), is constitutional.”

Wooldridge Constr. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank, 634 P.2d 13 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “§ 33-992 would clearly provide for priority with respect to such a lien from the time labor was commenced on the site, In this context, we cannot believe that the legislature intended to deny the availability of a lien pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-981 for similar *93 work when it has…”

Show all 71 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-981(0) — 1 case

Sanders v. Foley, 945 P.2d 1313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-981(13) — 1 case

Stratton v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 683 P.2d 327 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “However, A.R.S. § 33-981(13) in itself neither creates actual agency nor permits the subcontractor or material supplier to seek a personal judgment against the owner.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-981(33) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-981(A) — 16 cases

Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, 283 P.3d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “¶ 19 Arizona’s mechanic’s liens statutes, A.R.S. §§ 33-981 to -1008 (West 2012), protect laborers and materialmen (collectively, “Laborers”), who generally lack privity of contract with a property owner, by providing them with a lien on real property for the amount of labor and…”

Performance Funding, L.L.C. v. Arizona Pipe Trade Trust Funds, 49 P.3d 293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “Upon the parties’ stipulation, the trial court entered judgment pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on the issue of the validity of the Trust Funds’ liens.”

Brown Wholesale Elec. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 659 P.2d 1299 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “Appellant and Case filed a joint answer denying the allegations of the complaint and, in addition, raised four affirmative defenses: (I) failure to state a claim; (2) statute of frauds; (3) failure to give notice as required by A.R.S. §§ 33-981 — 1006; and (4) limitation of…”

B. J. Cecil Trucking, Inc. v. Tiffany Constr. Co., 597 P.2d 184 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “It is appellees’ position, on the other hand, that the legislature did not intend to accord a right of action under A.”

Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting Co., Inc., 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “2d 81, 84-85 (1966) (finding owner subject to mechanic’s lien because person hiring labor and materials was obligated to make improvements under contract with owner and acted as an agent within the meaning of § 33-981). ¶ 19 This is not a case where the improvements at issue…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-981(B) — 7 cases

S.K. Drywall, Inc. v. Developers Fin. Grp., Inc., 799 P.2d 1362 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

United Metro Materials, Inc. v. Pena Blanca Props., L.L.C., 4 P.3d 1022 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).

Env't Liners, Inc. v. Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite, 930 P.2d 456 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Butler & Booth Dev. Co., 711 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-981(C) — 1 case

Schlicht v. Curtin, 570 P.2d 801 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-981(D) — 8 cases

Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 263 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “A.R.S. §§ 33-981(D), 33-992.01(B). A lien claimant’s preliminary notice must include both “[a] general description of the labor, professional services, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished or to be furnished and an estimate of the total price thereof,” § 33-992.”

MLM Const. Co., Inc. v. Pace Corp., 836 P.2d 439 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).

Cemex Constr. Materials South, LLC v. Falcone Bros. & Assocs., Inc., 349 P.3d 210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).

Allstate Util. Constr., LLC v. Towne Bank, 263 P.3d 694 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).

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.