A. When a lien is recorded or notice given by any person other than a contractor, the contractor shall defend any action brought thereon.
B. During pendency of such action the owner may withhold the amount sued for, and if judgment is given upon the lien, he may deduct from any amount due or to become due from him to the contractor the amount of the judgment and costs.
C. If the owner has settled with the contractor in full, or if such an amount is not owing to the contractor, the owner may recover back from the contractor the amount so paid by him, and for which the contractor was the party originally liable.
D. Any contractor, subcontractor or other person who is obligated by statute, contract or agreement to defend, remove, compromise or pay any claim of lien or action and who undertakes such activity has the rights of the owner and beneficial title holder against all persons concerning such activity, as specified in sections 33-420 and 33-994.
E. If any contractor or other person institutes an action to foreclose a lien pursuant to this article, the court may, at its discretion, award the prevailing party on the lien claim all reasonable expenses incurred in the action including attorney fees, other professional services and bond premiums under section 33-1004.
Notes of Decisions
Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting Co., Inc., 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “Attorneys’ Fees ¶ 53 The trial court granted the lot owners’ request for $46,789 in attorneys’ fees and *377 costs as the prevailing party in a lien foreclosure suit, A.R.S. §§ 33-995(E) and -998(B), and because it concluded Markham recorded a wrongful document, id.”
United Metro Materials, Inc. v. Pena Blanca Props., L.L.C., 4 P.3d 1022 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“section 33-995(E), which bestows discretion on the court to award the prevailing party in actions to foreclose liens “all reasonable expenses incurred in the action including attorney fees, other professional services and bond premiums under § 33-1004.”
Dixon v. Feffer, 327 P.2d 994 (Ariz. 1958).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 33-995 provides protection for the owner against actions brought on liens filed by persons other than the contractor.”
Haci v. Bmo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Attorney Fees ¶14 Both parties request their attorney fees and costs on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 33-995, -998 and 12-341.01. We deny BMO’s request, but as the prevailing party, HACI is entitled to its reasonable costs and fees upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-995(A) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-995(E) — 2 cases
Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting Co., Inc., 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“Attorneys’ Fees ¶ 53 The trial court granted the lot owners’ request for $46,789 in attorneys’ fees and *377 costs as the prevailing party in a lien foreclosure suit, A.R.S. §§ 33-995(E) and -998(B), and because it concluded Markham recorded a wrongful document, id.”
United Metro Materials, Inc. v. Pena Blanca Props., L.L.C., 4 P.3d 1022 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“section 33-995(E), which bestows discretion on the court to award the prevailing party in actions to foreclose liens “all reasonable expenses incurred in the action including attorney fees, other professional services and bond premiums under § 33-1004.”
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.