Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-998 (2026)

Limitation of action to foreclose lien; attorney fees

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. A lien granted under the provisions of this article shall not continue for a longer period than six months after it is recorded, unless action is brought within that period to enforce the lien and a notice of pendency of action is recorded pursuant to section 12-1191 in the office of the county recorder in the county where the property is located. If a lien claimant is made a party defendant to an action brought by another lien claimant, the filing within such period of six months of an answer or cross-claim asserting the lien shall be deemed the commencement of an action within the meaning of this section.

B. In any action to enforce a lien granted under this article, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2024 · leading case: Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, 283 P.3d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, 283 P.3d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 11× “” Since the purpose of the notice requirement is to allow an owner an opportunity to protect himself and to investigate the claim, absent unusual circumstances, the notice requirement of § 33-993(A) will not be met merely by appending a copy of the notice and claim of lien to…”

Scottsdale Mem'l Health Sys., Inc. v. Clark, 759 P.2d 607 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 23× “The counterclaim for foreclosure against NSA was filed within the six-month limitation period mandated by A.R.S. § 33-998 for foreclosure of mechanic’s liens after recording.”

HCZ Constr. Inc. v. First Franklin Fin. Corp., 18 P.3d 155 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “In any action to foreclose a mechanics’ or materialmen’s lien pursuant to title 33, chapter 7, article 6, the lien claimant shall file a notice of pendency of action as prescribed by § 33-998 within five days of filing the action or raising the defense.”

Collins v. Stockwell, 671 P.2d 394 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 4× “Thereafter, on September 26, 1978, Collins filed an action to foreclose the lien within the six-month period required by A.R.S. § 33-998. At no time was a notice of lis pendens filed.”

Cont'l Lighting & Contracting, Inc. v. Premier Grading & Utils., LLC, 258 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “, merely holds that A.R.S. §§ 33-998 and 12-1191 together require a lis pendens to be filed within five days of filing an action to foreclose a mechanics' lien and that failure to do so results in extinguishment of the lien.”

Fagerlie v. Markham Contracting Co., Inc., 258 P.3d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “§ 33—993(C)(2), they effectively raised an affirmative defense that Markham’s lien was statutorily barred by the 120 day limit under A.R.S. § 33-998. Accordingly, the lot owners bore the burden to prove that all labor had ceased during the gap.”

Scottsdale Mem'l Health Sys., Inc. v. Clark, 791 P.2d 1094 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “section 33-998 for foreclosure of mechanic’s liens after recording.”

Hanson Aggregates Arizona, Inc. v. Rissling Constr. Grp., Inc., 127 P.3d 910 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “[t]he failure of the lien claimant to commence a suit within the time allowed pursuant to § 33-998.” A.R.S. § 33-1004(D)(l)(emphasis added).”

In re Mayer Cent. Bldg. Corp., 275 F. Supp. 873 (D. Ariz. 1967). · cites it 14× “179138, wherein it sought to foreclose said lien in accordance with the provisions of A.R.S. § 33-998, and thereafter filed a proof of secured claim in these proceedings.”

United Pac. Ins. v. Cottonwood Props., Inc., 750 P.2d 907 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 33-998 governs the disposition of this case: “A lien granted under the provisions of this article shall not continue for a longer period than six months after it is recorded, unless action is brought within such period to enforce the lien____” While “mechanic’s lien…”

Paul D. Reardon & John E. Reardon v. United States of Am. & the United States Env't Prot. Agency, 947 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir. 1991). “Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 33-998. See also, e.”

Show all 27 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-998(A) — 4 cases

Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, 283 P.3d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “” Since the purpose of the notice requirement is to allow an owner an opportunity to protect himself and to investigate the claim, absent unusual circumstances, the notice requirement of § 33-993(A) will not be met merely by appending a copy of the notice and claim of lien to…”

HCZ Constr. Inc. v. First Franklin Fin. Corp., 18 P.3d 155 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “In any action to foreclose a mechanics’ or materialmen’s lien pursuant to title 33, chapter 7, article 6, the lien claimant shall file a notice of pendency of action as prescribed by § 33-998 within five days of filing the action or raising the defense.”

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

All. Trutrus, L.L.C. v. Carlson Real Est. Co., 270 P.3d 911 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-998(B) — 5 cases

Hanson Aggregates Arizona, Inc. v. Rissling Constr. Grp., Inc., 127 P.3d 910 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “[t]he failure of the lien claimant to commence a suit within the time allowed pursuant to § 33-998.” A.R.S. § 33-1004(D)(l)(emphasis added).”

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

Red Mountain Mach. Co. v. Grace Inv. Co., 29 F.3d 1408 (9th Cir. 1994).

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.