ARS 9-462.06 Interpretation

In Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson, 201 Ariz. 438, 442, P16, 36 P.3d 1208, 1212 (App. 2001) the Court concluded that the exhaustion of remedies doctrine precluded a soil recycling company from filing suit to overturn the decision of a city zoning administrator because it had not first appealed to the city's board of adjustment as required by statute; see A.R.S. 9-462.06 (1996). On the other hand, in Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc., the Court held that the exhaustion of remedies doctrine did not preclude a lawsuit against a construction company for alleged defects. 206 Ariz. 581, 585, P13-14, 81 P.3d 1040, 1044 (App. 2003). The Court held that the trial court could address the merits of the action even though the owners did not appeal a corrective order issued by the Arizona State Registrar of Contractors because that administrative procedure was merely permissive and therefore did not trigger the exhaustion of remedies doctrine. Id.