Key Takeaways
- • A Gilbert, Arizona rental-home owner had a $3,200 small-claims-style judgment against a licensed contractor who allegedly took payment for air-conditioning work and did not perform it, but the Arizona Residential Recovery Fund denied the claim because it covers only owner-occupied homes.
- • The contractor relocated to Texas, leaving the judgment uncollectible, according to the article's reader-question account.
- • The column notes the fund currently holds a significant balance, which the author cites as a possible argument for legislation extending limited reimbursement to investor-owned rental properties.
- • The author also acknowledges a strong public policy rationale for limiting the fund to owner-occupants rather than investors.
Summary
A reader's question published by azcentral.com and The Arizona Republic highlights a gap in Arizona's Residential Recovery Fund, which compensates homeowners harmed by licensed contractors' poor workmanship. The reader, who owns a rental home in Gilbert that was gifted by a late father-in-law, described hiring a licensed contractor after a tenant reported an air-conditioning problem and the tenant moved out. The contractor, whom the reader found through a flyer posted at a local Safeway, allegedly accepted payment of $3,200 and performed no work.
The reader sued and obtained a $3,200 judgment against the contractor. Collection proved impossible after the contractor moved to Texas. The reader then filed a claim with the Arizona Residential Recovery Fund, which was denied because the fund's payouts for poor workmanship by licensed contractors are limited to owner-occupied homes and exclude rental properties.
The column's author, attorney Christopher Combs of Combs Law Group, responded that the fund currently holds a significant amount of money, so this could be an opportune time for legislation allowing investors to recover at least some losses from the fund. Combs also acknowledged a strong public policy interest in protecting owner-occupants rather than investors, which is the principal reason the fund's eligibility is restricted. The exchange offers no figures on the fund's total balance or pending legislation, and the column does not indicate that any bill has been introduced.
The reader sued and obtained a $3,200 judgment against the contractor. Collection proved impossible after the contractor moved to Texas. The reader then filed a claim with the Arizona Residential Recovery Fund, which was denied because the fund's payouts for poor workmanship by licensed contractors are limited to owner-occupied homes and exclude rental properties.
The column's author, attorney Christopher Combs of Combs Law Group, responded that the fund currently holds a significant amount of money, so this could be an opportune time for legislation allowing investors to recover at least some losses from the fund. Combs also acknowledged a strong public policy interest in protecting owner-occupants rather than investors, which is the principal reason the fund's eligibility is restricted. The exchange offers no figures on the fund's total balance or pending legislation, and the column does not indicate that any bill has been introduced.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.