A. A person who furnishes professional services or material or labors upon a lot in an incorporated city or town, or any parcel of land not exceeding one hundred sixty acres in the aggregate, or fills in or otherwise improves the lot or such parcel of land, or a street, alley or proposed street or alley, within, in front of or adjoining the lot or parcel of land at the instance of the owner of the lot or parcel of land, shall have a lien on the lot or parcel of contiguous land not exceeding one hundred sixty acres in the aggregate, and the buildings, structures and improvements on the lot for professional services or material furnished and labor performed.
B. Every contractor, subcontractor, architect, builder, subdivider or other person having charge or control of the improvement or work on any such lot or parcel of land, either wholly or in part, is the agent of the owner for the purposes of this section, and the owner shall be liable for the reasonable value of professional services, labor or material furnished at the instance of such agent, upon a lot or parcel of land as prescribed in this section, or any street, alley or proposed street or alley, within, in front of or adjoining such lot or parcel of land.
Notes of Decisions
Adams Tree Serv., Inc. v. Transamerica Title Ins., 511 P.2d 658 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 21× “Does A.R.S. § 33-983 allow a claimant to lien more real property than labored upon when the labor and materials improve or benefit contiguous real property ? 2.”
Nw. Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Tiffany Constr. Co., 761 P.2d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 8× “Did Tiffany have one or eight liens on the subdivision? Tiffany had lien rights under A.R.S. § 33-983(A), which provides that a person who improves a street shall have a lien on “the lot or parcel” of contiguous land: A person who furnishes professional services or material or…”
Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting Co., Inc., 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “” AR.S. § 33-983(B). In this case, EHV’s sales contract with the lot owners effectively placed it in control of the improvement project which it hired Markham to perform.”
Desert Vista Apts., Inc. v. O'Malley Lumber Co., 436 P.2d 479 (Ariz. 1968).
· cites it 8× “Two defenses were raised: (1) That notice to defendant was required under A.R.S. § 33-983, but was not given; and (2) That plaintiff was estopped from maintaining his action.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-983(A) — 2 cases
Nw. Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Tiffany Constr. Co., 761 P.2d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“Did Tiffany have one or eight liens on the subdivision? Tiffany had lien rights under A.R.S. § 33-983(A), which provides that a person who improves a street shall have a lien on “the lot or parcel” of contiguous land: A person who furnishes professional services or material or…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-983(B) — 1 case
Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting Co., Inc., 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“” AR.S. § 33-983(B). In this case, EHV’s sales contract with the lot owners effectively placed it in control of the improvement project which it hired Markham to perform.”
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.