Ark. Code Ann. § 18-44-114 (2026)
Notice and service generally
- Every person who may wish to avail himself or herself of the benefit of the provisions of this subchapter shall give ten (10) days' notice before the filing of the lien, as required in § 18-44-117(a), to the owner of a building or improvement that he or she holds a claim against the building or improvement, setting forth the amount and from whom it is due.
-
-
The notice may be served by any:
- Officer authorized by law to serve process in a civil action;
- Person who would be a competent witness;
- Form of mail addressed to the person to be served, with a return receipt requested and delivery restricted to the addressee or the agent of the addressee; or
- Means that provides written, third-party verification of delivery at any place where the owner of the building or improvement maintains an office, conducts business, or resides.
-
-
- When served by an officer, his or her official return endorsed on the notice shall be proof of the service.
- When served by any other person, the fact of the service shall be verified by affidavit of the person serving the notice.
-
-
When served by mail, the service shall be:
- Complete when mailed; and
- Verified by a return receipt signed by the addressee or the agent of the addressee, or a returned envelope, postal document, or affidavit by a postal employee reciting or showing refusal of the notice by the addressee or that the item was unclaimed.
-
If delivery of the mailed notice is refused by the addressee or the item is unclaimed:
- The lien claimant shall immediately send the owner of the building or improvement a copy of the notice by first class mail and may proceed to file his or her lien; and
- The unopened original of the item marked unclaimed or refused by the United States Postal Service shall be accepted as proof of service as of the postmarked date of the item.
-
When served by mail, the service shall be:
-
-
The notice may be served by any:
History. Acts 1895, No. 146, § 6, p. 217; C. & M. Dig., § 6917; Pope's Dig., § 8876; A.S.A. 1947, § 51-608; Acts 1991, No. 588, § 1; 1999, No. 1466, § 1; 2005, No. 2287, § 5; 2009, No. 454, § 3.
Amendments. The 1999 amendment added (a)(1)(B) and (a)(2); and made stylistic changes.
The 2005 amendment redesignated former (a)(1)(A) as present (a); deleted “except the original contractor” following “Every person” in present (a); and deleted former (a)(1)(B) and (a)(2).
The 2009 amendment substituted “owner of a building or improvement” for “owner, owners, or agent, or either of them” in (a); in (b), inserted (b)(1)(D), (b)(2)(B)(i)(a), and (b)(2)(B)(ii)(b), redesignated subdivisions accordingly, inserted “or that the item was unclaimed” in (b)(2)(B)(i)(b), inserted “or the item is unclaimed” in (b)(2)(B)(ii), and rewrote (b)(2)(B)(ii)(a); and made related and minor stylistic changes.
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Arkansas Law Survey, Scroggins, Debtor-Creditor, 9 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 147.
Case Notes
Construction.
This section is to be liberally construed in favor of the lien claimant. Wildwood Amusement Co. v. Stout Lumber Co., 178 Ark. 977, 12 S.W.2d 911 (1929).
Agents.
Object of the notice is for the benefit and protection of the owner, and to be served on an agent, it must be such an agent as would be required to report to his principal. Ellis v. Fayetteville Lumber & Cement Co., 195 Ark. 385, 112 S.W.2d 613 (1938); Bell v. Apache Supply Co., 300 Ark. 494, 780 S.W.2d 529 (1989).
The agent to whom notice may be given must be an agent the owner has expressly vested with authority to receive notice, or referred to as the one to whom notice might be given, or be an agent of general authority, in such managerial or directing situation with reference to the construction of the building as would constitute him the alter ego of the owner. Shannon Supply Co. v. Avey, 240 Ark. 997, 403 S.W.2d 87 (1966); Bell v. Apache Supply Co., 300 Ark. 494, 780 S.W.2d 529 (1989).
Tenant held not an agent for the purpose of receiving notice of intention to file a lien against landowners' property. Bell v. Apache Supply Co., 300 Ark. 494, 780 S.W.2d 529 (1989).
Commencement of Action.
The institution of a suit by a materialman to enforce a lien for materials furnished cures the omission to comply with this section where the suit is brought before the expiration of the statutory period within which liens may be enforced. Pfeiffer Stone Co. v. Brogdon, 125 Ark. 426, 188 S.W. 1187 (1916); Robins v. East Arkansas Builders Supply Co., 199 Ark. 1174, 199 Ark. 1174, 137 S.W.2d 924 (1940).
Where suit was not brought within the statutory period, the lien claimant was not relieved from filing the account and giving the notice. St. Mathews Church v. White, 172 Ark. 1152, 291 S.W. 977 (1927).
It would not be necessary for appellee to comply with either § 18-44-101 creating a lien in favor of the party or this section by which he could have given the required notice provided he commenced a suit against the necessary parties within the statutory period after the last item was furnished. Burks v. Sims, 230 Ark. 170, 321 S.W.2d 767 (1959).
Compliance.
This section must be substantially complied with. Conway Lumber Co. v. Hardin, 119 Ark. 43, 177 S.W. 408 (1915); Wildwood Amusement Co. v. Stout Lumber Co., 178 Ark. 977, 12 S.W.2d 911 (1929).
Failure to give the notice required by this section is fatal to a lien or a personal judgment against the owner. Hirsch v. Farris, 174 Ark. 1040, 298 S.W. 487 (1927); Bell v. Apache Supply Co., 300 Ark. 494, 780 S.W.2d 529 (1989).
Where materialman failed to give ten days' statutory notice of intention to hold a lien for material furnished, he was only entitled to a judgment against owner for amount of material furnished and was not entitled to a mechanic's lien. Ashdown Hdwe. Co. v. Hughes, 223 Ark. 541, 267 S.W.2d 294 (1954).
Subcontractor did not acquire a mechanic's and materialman's lien on a home, notwithstanding that the subcontractor gave the homeowner the notice required by this section, because neither the subcontractor nor the contractor provided the notice required by § 18-44-115. Bryant v. Jim Atkinson Tile, 100 Ark. App. 408, 269 S.W.3d 383 (2007).
Contents.
Notice which did not set forth the amount claimed and from whom the same was due was defective. Scott v. Le Grande, 225 Ark. 1022, 287 S.W.2d 456 (1956).
A subcontractor's notice of lien addressed to both the owners of the premises and the general contractor, which stated the amount due, was not defective for failure to state from whom it was due. Bobo v. Sebree, 244 Ark. 915, 429 S.W.2d 95 (1968).
Exceptions.
The notice is not required if the owner himself purchased the material or employed the labor. Malone v. Holly Grove Lumber Co., 148 Ark. 242, 229 S.W. 716 (1921); Hess v. A.L. Ferguson Lumber Co., 155 Ark. 240, 244 S.W. 5 (1922); Brannan v. Paul Sanders & Son, 201 Ark. 306, 144 S.W.2d 474 (1940).
A company furnishing material under a contract with the owner's agent is not required to give the notice provided for in this section. Arkmo Lumber Co. v. Cantrell, 159 Ark. 445, 252 S.W. 901 (1923).
Whether materialman sold materials directly to owner so as not to be required to give notice before filing lien was for trial court upon disputed evidence. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Willbanks, 201 Ark. 386, 144 S.W.2d 1092 (1940).
The original contractor is not required to give the required notice to the owner. Rea v. Lammers, 212 Ark. 792, 207 S.W.2d 740 (1948).
Pleading.
A question as to whether notice of a mechanic's lien was given will not be considered on appeal if it was not raised by the pleadings nor determined by the lower court. Whitcomb v. Gans, 90 Ark. 469, 119 S.W. 676 (1909); Morehart v. A.B. Beeler Lumber Co., 176 Ark. 818, 4 S.W.2d 29 (1928).
Where the complaint alleged compliance with this section which was not denied in the answer, the allegation was taken as confessed. Jones v. J.C. Stephenson Lumber Co., 149 Ark. 670, 234 S.W. 263 (1921).
Service.
Notice not served in person by a person authorized to serve the notice under this section was not a valid notice. Scott v. Le Grande, 225 Ark. 1022, 287 S.W.2d 456 (1956).
Mailing of notice by registered mail was an insufficient compliance with this section. Scott v. Le Grande, 225 Ark. 1022, 287 S.W.2d 456 (1956).
Settlement.
Agreement by trustees with company suing to enforce materialman's lien which was reached before the expiration of statutory period required by § 18-44-117 rendered unnecessary further service on trustees and estopped them from pleading suit was not brought in time. Robins v. East Arkansas Builders Supply Co., 199 Ark. 1174, 199 Ark. 1174, 137 S.W.2d 924 (1940).
Strict Compliance.
The notice provisions contained in the statute are to be strictly construed, thus requiring strict compliance; they cannot be satisfied by substantial compliance. Books-A-Million, Inc. v. Cockerman Constr. Co., 340 Ark. 467, 10 S.W.3d 857 (2000).
Cited: Leifer Mfg. Co. v. Gross, 93 Ark. 277, 124 S.W. 1039 (1910); Doke v. Benton County Lumber Co., 114 Ark. 1, 169 S.W. 327 (1914); Franks v. Wood, 217 Ark. 10, 228 S.W.2d 480 (1950); B.S.C., Inc. v. McKinney, 263 Ark. 110, 562 S.W.2d 600 (1978); Lowe's of Ark., Inc. v. Bush, 282 Ark. 508, 669 S.W.2d 198 (1984); Duncan v. Davis & Earnest, Inc., 285 Ark. 143, 685 S.W.2d 509 (1985); American Nat'l Bank v. Dux, 286 Ark. 309, 691 S.W.2d 851 (1985); Westside Galvanizing Services, Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 921 F.2d 735 (8th Cir. 1990).