Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 33
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-991 (2026)

Lands to which liens extend; rural lands; city lots; subdivision lots; mining claims

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

A. If the land upon which an improvement is made and labor or professional services have been performed lies outside of the limits of the recorded map or plat of a townsite, an incorporated city or town, or a subdivision, the lien shall extend to and include not to exceed ten acres of the land upon which the improvement is made and the labor has been performed.

B. If the land on which an improvement is made or labor or professional services have been performed lies within the limits of a recorded map or plat of a townsite, an incorporated city or town, or a subdivision, the lien shall extend to and include only the particular lot or lots upon which the improvement is made and the labor has been performed.

C. If the labor is performed or the improvements made upon a mining claim, the lien shall extend to the whole thereof and to the group of which the claim upon which the work was done is a part if the group is operated as one property.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1967–2012 · leading case: Adams Tree Serv., Inc. v. Transamerica Title Ins., 511 P.2d 658 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adams Tree Serv., Inc. v. Transamerica Title Ins., 511 P.2d 658 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 11× “It was suggested in the Arizona Law Review article, supra, and this seems to be a correct interpretation, that A.R.S. § 33-991 relates back only to A.R.”
Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, 283 P.3d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 33-981(A), which authorizes imposition of a lien on “any building, or other structure or improvement,” and A.R.S. § 33-991(A) and (B), which provide such liens extend to the real property underlying the improvements, to conclude the legislature intended to permit Laborers to…”
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 263 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “01(C); (3) Delmastro failed to name Taco Bell as the owner of the property in its notice and claim of lien filed pursuant to § 33-993; and (4) the notice and claim of lien failed to apportion value for the work performed on Block 3, as required by A.R.S. § 33-991. Taco Bell also…”
Nw. Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Tiffany Constr. Co., 761 P.2d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “The reference to "lands" in the plural may have - been intended to describe the lien for improvements to a structure on the "acres” or the "lot or lots” upon which an improvement is made.”
Wahl v. Sw. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 467 P.2d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 4× “A (footnote 2, supra) provides that the materialmen furnishing materials “ * * * in the construction * * * of any building, or other structure or improvement whatever, shall have a lien thereon * * (Emphasis added).”
Wooldridge Constr. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank, 634 P.2d 13 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Rather we view it as a legal conclusion that the work listed was insufficient to establish appellant’s priority over the bank’s deed of trust under A.R.S. § 33-991. Were the trial court to have found that this site preparation work were not done, that finding would have been…”
Hayward Lumber & Inv. Co. v. Graham, 449 P.2d 31 (Ariz. 1968). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 33-991, subsec. A states that: “A.”
Michael Weller Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 614 P.2d 865 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “) A.R.S. § 33-991 designates what lands the lien created by § 33-983 extends to when city lots are involved: B.”
Ayres v. Red Cloud Mills, Ltd., 808 P.2d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 33-991(C). Another companion statute creates a procedure for a mine owner to avoid liability and the miner’s lien where the mine is operated by a lessee.”
Deck v. Hammer, 440 P.2d 1006 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). “§ 33-991, subsec. A, A.R.S., provides that if the land is located in a rural1 area the lien shall extend to and include-ten acres of land upon which the labor was performed.”
In re Mayer Cent. Bldg. Corp., 275 F. Supp. 873 (D. Ariz. 1967). · cites it 2× “has not proven its claim for items which are lienable under A.R.S. § 33-991. 25. The claims of lien claimants whose claims are attributable to the South property, except Ray Lumber Company, are subordinate and inferior to the lien of The Valley National Bank of Arizona, even if…”
Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “01(C); (3) Delmastro failed to name Taco Bell as the owner of the property in its notice and claim of lien filed pursuant to § 33-993; and (4) the notice and claim of lien failed to apportion value for the work performed on Block 3, as required by A.R.S. § 33-991. Taco Bell also…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-991(A) — 1 case
Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, 283 P.3d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “§ 33-981(A), which authorizes imposition of a lien on “any building, or other structure or improvement,” and A.R.S. § 33-991(A) and (B), which provide such liens extend to the real property underlying the improvements, to conclude the legislature intended to permit Laborers to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-991(C) — 1 case
Ayres v. Red Cloud Mills, Ltd., 808 P.2d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “” A.R.S. § 33-991(C). Another companion statute creates a procedure for a mine owner to avoid liability and the miner’s lien where the mine is operated by a lessee.”
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.