A.R.S. 32-1153: A Contractor Must Be Licensed to Sue for Payment

The statute is one long sentence. Here it is in full:

No contractor as defined in section 32-1101 shall act as agent or commence or maintain any action in any court of the state for collection of compensation for the performance of any act for which a license is required by this chapter without alleging and proving that the contracting party whose contract gives rise to the claim was a duly licensed contractor when the contract sued upon was entered into and when the alleged cause of action arose.

Break that down into plain parts:

• It covers a contractor as defined in A.R.S. 32-1101. That is broad. It includes plumbers and most building trades.
• It applies to any act "for which a license is required by this chapter." Work that needs a license triggers the rule.
• The contractor cannot "commence or maintain any action" to collect payment without one thing.
• It must be "alleging and proving" it was a "duly licensed contractor" at two moments.
• Those moments are "when the contract sued upon was entered into" and "when the alleged cause of action arose."

Both moments must be covered. A license at only one of the two is not enough.

This statute matters most in a payment fight. Consider these Phoenix examples:

• An unlicensed person does a whole-house repipe. That work needs a license. You are unhappy and refuse to pay. He sues you in small claims court. Under 32-1153, he cannot prove he was licensed, so he cannot maintain the case for payment.
• A contractor's license lapsed partway through the job. If the license was not valid at both the contract date and the claim date, the bar can apply.
• A person does a small job that does not need a license, such as work under Arizona's handyman exemption. In that case the license rule does not bar a suit, because no license was required for that work. See our page on the owner-builder and handyman exemption.

The statute protects the customer. It removes the unlicensed party's court remedy to force payment for licensed work.

The lesson is simple. Hire licensed people for work that needs a license. Check the license before the job starts, not after. Our guide on how to verify a plumber's ROC license walks you through it. Also see licensed contractor vs. handyman in Arizona to learn which jobs need a license.

If an unlicensed person did licensed work and now demands payment or threatens to sue, this statute is your shield. It does not erase every duty you may have, and it is not a reason to skip paying a legitimate licensed contractor. But it takes away the court collection path for someone who was not licensed.

If the contractor was licensed but did bad or incomplete work, you have other tools. See our pages on the Residential Contractors' Recovery Fund and the deadline to file an ROC complaint.

Confirm the current statute before you rely on it. The wording above reflects A.R.S. 32-1153 as published on the Arizona Legislature's site as of this writing. Laws change, so check the current text or ask an attorney first.

The quoted text above comes from the official Arizona Revised Statutes, a public-domain government work. Read the full section on the Arizona Legislature's site: A.R.S. 32-1153 on azleg.gov. The definition of "contractor" it points to lives in A.R.S. 32-1101.

This page explains a general Arizona statute and is not legal advice. Whether the license bar applies to a specific dispute depends on the facts and on whether the work required a license, so confirm your situation with a qualified attorney before relying on it.