Real Estate & Construction



An appeal of an administrative agency’s decision now leads to a fresh trial in Superior Court, where the agency’s decision is disregarded.

AMENDMENTS TO A.R.S. § 12-910 REMOVE ALL DEFERENCE TO THE AGENCY’S RULING.

Under older versions of A.R.S. § 12-910, the decisions of administrative agencies received deference from the Court. That is to say, in any close question of fact or law, the Court was required to defer to the agency’s decision or interpretation.

The Court’s duty to defer to administrative agencies began to erode a few years ago. In 2018 the Legislature amended A.R.S. § 12-910 to remove
Continue Reading Changes in Arizona law governing administrative appeals create new opportunities and challenges for contractors in ROC hearings



If you have a case before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings, an administrative subpoena can help you get the information you need to support your argument.

By



Mickell Summerhays

and

Jamie Hanson

In an administrative proceeding, there are two types of subpoenas: One compels a witness to attend the hearing, and the other – more common and often more useful – compels a party to produce documents.[1]

Obtaining a Subpoena.

Getting either type of subpoena is a two-step process.

First, you create the actual subpoena document, which includes the title of the case, what the subpoena is asking
Continue Reading Do-it-yourself subpoena: a useful tool in an administrative hearing



If the federal government wrests worker safety enforcement from the state Industrial Commission, Arizona employers will face greater regulatory compliance burdens.

By

Andrew Wenker

(480-534-4879 or

email

)

  • having a written plan to mitigate the spread of COVID-19;

  • providing personal protective equipment to workers;

  • ensuring social distancing where possible; and

  • providing paid time off for workers to become vaccinated or recover from side effects.

Because Arizona had laws and regulations in place that would potentially address the contents of the ETS, in July 2021 the Industrial Commission requested

certain deviations

that would exempt the state.

Specifically, Arizona law already permitted
Continue Reading OSHA “power grab” poses a new regulatory threat to Arizona employers

By: Luke Mecklenburg

Last year, I posted regarding the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Woodbridge II, which concluded that the “adverse use” element for prescriptive easement claims only requires the claimant to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2.  Thus, Woodbridge II concluded, the claimants acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context.  Id.  That decision was up for review by the Colorado Supreme Court at the time
Continue Reading The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction



Effective September 29, 2021, amendments to a pesky Arizona law make many forms of advertising – radio, television, internet, and outdoor – a bit simpler for Arizona licensed contractors.

By

Jason Clark

(480-534-4876,

email

)

Specifically, licensed contractors are excused from displaying or mentioning their license number on broadcast, internet or billboard advertising (including vehicle signage)

if the ad includes a web address

that “prominently displays the licensee’s name and license number.” (See the revised

A.R.S. § 32-1124

.)

For these purposes,

the ROC has explained

that a licensee’s name and ROC license number are “prominently displayed” if they:

  • appear


Continue Reading Arizona law eases advertising requirements for licensed contractors

By:  Ben Reeves
Courts overseeing receivers generally enjoy broad discretion in directing and approving a receiver’s proposed actions.  But does that authority extend to a receiver not only granting a super-priority lien ahead of existing liens, but also selling the real property free and clear of all liens?  In County of Sonoma v. Quail, 56 Cal.App.5th 657 (Ct. App. 2020), the California Court of Appeals answered that question in the affirmative.
Quail involved a 47,480 square-foot lot with two houses, a few garages, several outbuildings, and numerous trailers surrounded by a veritable junk yard.  Despite many of these structures
Continue Reading Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?

By: Amanda Z. Weaver
For the first time in nearly twenty years, the Arizona Court of Appeals last week weighed in on Arizona’s equine activity liability statute, finding that a form signed by participants before a trail ride did not qualify as a “release” under the statute, and concluding that participants’ claims of negligence against the trail ride operators remained in the case.
In Gruver v. Wild Western Horseback Adventures, LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0566 (Ariz. App. Aug. 17, 2021), two individuals participated in a trail ride after signing a “Visitor’s Acknowledgment of Risk,” which provided:
I assume full
Continue Reading Equine Activity Liability Releases: The Arizona Court of Appeals Finds “Release” of Trail Ride Operator Doesn’t Block Negligence Claim for Participant Riding Injury

See also:

Lang & Klain’s

Government Regulation and Administrative Law practice

A Super Lawyers Rising Stars honoree in Construction Litigation, Jamie is a member of the State Bar’s Construction Law Section and an Executive Council member of the Bar’s Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Section.

Jamie is active in the construction industry, wi

th trade memberships including the American Subcontractors Association of Arizona, Mechanical Trade Contractors Association of Arizona, Ceramic Tile & Stone Association of Arizona, Arizona Landscape Contractors Association, and Southwest Business Credit Services.
Continue Reading Jamie Hanson certified as an Administrative Law Specialist

By:  Kevin J. Parker
In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 2021 WL 3204491 (7/29/2021), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether a home builder’s attempt to disclaim implied warranties of workmanship and habitability was effective.  In that case, the buyer initialed the builder’s prominent disclaimer of all implied warranties, including implied warranties of habitability and workmanship.  After the purchase, the buyer sued the builder, claiming construction defects.  The builder moved for summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the disclaimer of warranties.  The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment,
Continue Reading Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?



The state’s newly passed budget reduces the top rate for high-income taxpayers from 8% to, eventually, a flat 2.5% and counters the impact of the Prop. 208 surtax.

On June 30, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed legislation, passed by House and Senate Republicans on party-line votes, that, according to a Governor’s Office statement, “paves the way for the largest tax cut in state history.”

The new law provides a maximum tax rate of 4.5% (the state’s current top tax bracket) and, by year three, replaces the state’s four income tax rates (ranging from 2.59% to 4.5%) with a flat tax
Continue Reading Arizona's income tax rates are capped at 4.5% and heading lower

On May 27, 2021, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy, 2021 COA 73.  In that case, the court decided two significant issues that apparently had never been expressly ruled on by a Colorado appellate court before: (1) that Colorado’s common-law after-acquired title doctrine was not abrogated by adoption of the after-acquired interest statute; and (2) that utility easements may be implied by necessity.
As is often the case in matters involving access and implied property rights, the facts and history underlying Amada are complicated, but the case’s two
Continue Reading Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals expressly affirms the continuing viability of the common-law after-acquired title doctrine and expressly recognizes utility easements by necessity