Below is a link to a webinar I did with SunRay Construction Solutions, LLC on certain bond claims. Specifically, this webinar focuses on recovering on the following types of bonds that can be issued in connection with Arizona construction projects: (1) lien discharge bonds; (2) Arizona Little Miller Act bonds; and (3) federal Miller Act bonds.
What Happens After I Record My Lien? How Do I Get Paid?
Below is a link to a webinar I did with SunRay Construction Solutions, LLC a few months ago. As set forth in the title, this webinar focuses on what happens (or should happen) after a contractor or supplier records their mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien in Arizona. Among other things, it touches on the mechanics (no pun intended) of a lien foreclosure lawsuit in Arizona.
USING LIEN WAIVERS IN ARIZONA: PROCEED WITH CAUTION.
Below is a link to a webinar I did with SunRay Construction Solutions, LLC on using lien waivers in Arizona. I cover all four of Arizona’s statutory lien waivers and then discuss some general lien waiver do’s and don’ts. As I try to make clear in the webinar, be careful when signing lien waivers!
That was Quick: SK Builders, Inc. v. Smith is Legislatively Overruled by Amendments to Arizona’s Prompt Pay Act.
Back in April of this year, I authored this post concerning the Arizona Court of Appeals’ recent decision in SK Builders, Inc. v. Smith. In SK Builders, the court held that Arizona’s Prompt Pay Act (the “PPA”) did not apply to billings containing work furnished outside the preceding 30 days because the PPA stated that “billing[s] or estimate[s]” must be based on “work performed and…materials supplied during the preceding thirty day billing cycle.” In other words, the court found that payment applications submitted at the end of a billing cycle were limited to work performed or materials furnished within the preceding 30 days. But, as I briefly noted in a July update to my earlier post, the sun set on SK Builders rather quickly. The decision was legislatively overruled by an amendment to the PPA and is no longer good law.
“Preceding 30 days” means “Preceding 30 days” – Arizona Court of Appeals Finds that Prompt Pay Act Only Covers Work Performed Within 30-day Billing Cycle
***UPDATE – 7/23/2019***
The Court of Appeals’ decision in SK Builders, Inc. v. Smith, which is the subject of this post from April 2019, will cease being good law on August 27, 2019. The case was legislatively overruled by SB 1397, which was signed into law by Governor Ducey in April 2019 and will become effective on August 27, 2019. A post on the effects of SB 1397 and its overruling of the SK Builders decision will be forthcoming.
It is no secret that Arizona’s Prompt Pay Act (the “PPA”) is constructed around a 30-day 
billing cycle. Indeed, the PPA codified monthly progress billings as the standard payment arrangement on all Arizona construction projects. It was not, however, the understanding or practice of those in the construction industry that payment applications submitted at the end of a billing cycle were limited to work performed or materials furnished in the preceding 30 days. But this changed with the Arizona Court of Appeals’ recent decision in SK Builders, Inc. v. Smith. In SK Builders, the court held that the PPA provision stating that “billing[s] or estimate[s]” be based on “work performed and…materials supplied during the preceding thirty day billing cycle” means that the PPA does not apply to general contractors’ billings or estimates that contain work furnished outside the past 30 days.