AZAPP is a blog that provides a thorough, up-to-date, and efficient resource to stay abreast of significant developments concerning civil cases in Arizona's appellate courts - the two Divisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court.
AZAPP Update (Subscribe)
Contributors
Archives
AZAPP Blog
<< View Current Articles
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Twin Peaks Construction, Inc. v. Weatherguard Metal Construction, Inc. (2/27/07): Finding No Conflict Between Two Provisions Governing the Regulation of Contractors, a Unanimous Division Two Panel Affirms Award For Subcontractor Against Contractor
Weatherguard Metal was a subcontractor for Twin Peaks on a project for the City of Bisbee. After Twin Peaks was paid for the project, it refused to pay the entire amount it owed to Weatherguard for Weatherguard's services. Weatherguard filed an administrative complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, asserting that Twin Peaks had violated ARS 32-1154(A)(11) when it refused to pay Weatherguard. Twin Peaks pressed the administrative law judge to dismiss Weatherguard's claim, citing ARS 32-1153, which prevents an unlicensed contractor from bringing an action to collect for work performed. Rejecting Twin Peaks' defense, the ALJ concluded that by its terms, section 1153 applies only to civil, not administrative, actions. Twin Peaks appealed. The appellate court affirmed the ALJ's decision, noting that the text of 32-1153 limits it applications to "any action in any court of the state for collection of compensation." Because Weatherguard had only filed an administrative complaint against Twin Peaks -- an action to which Weatherguard was not a party -- the limitations of section 1153 did not apply. The court did not reach Weatherguard's assertion that it was, in fact, licensed to perform the work for Bisbee project.
Judge Espinosa authored the opinion in which Presiding Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Brammer concurred.
Weatherguard Metal was a subcontractor for Twin Peaks on a project for the City of Bisbee. After Twin Peaks was paid for the project, it refused to pay the entire amount it owed to Weatherguard for Weatherguard's services. Weatherguard filed an administrative complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, asserting that Twin Peaks had violated ARS 32-1154(A)(11) when it refused to pay Weatherguard. Twin Peaks pressed the administrative law judge to dismiss Weatherguard's claim, citing ARS 32-1153, which prevents an unlicensed contractor from bringing an action to collect for work performed. Rejecting Twin Peaks' defense, the ALJ concluded that by its terms, section 1153 applies only to civil, not administrative, actions. Twin Peaks appealed. The appellate court affirmed the ALJ's decision, noting that the text of 32-1153 limits it applications to "any action in any court of the state for collection of compensation." Because Weatherguard had only filed an administrative complaint against Twin Peaks -- an action to which Weatherguard was not a party -- the limitations of section 1153 did not apply. The court did not reach Weatherguard's assertion that it was, in fact, licensed to perform the work for Bisbee project.
Judge Espinosa authored the opinion in which Presiding Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Brammer concurred.
