Avoiding Perils for Unlicensed Contractors
California Lawyer
More Expert Advice

Avoiding Perils for Unlicensed Contractors

May 2008


     
The Legislature has dealt a harsh blow to unlicensed construction contractors. Business and Professions Code section 7031 has long prohibited unlicensed contractors from suing to collect compensation for work that requires a license. Why? "[T]o protect the public from the perils incident to contracting with incompetent or untrustworthy contractors." (Davis Co. v. Sup. Ct., 1 Cal. App. 3d 156, 158 (1969).)
      In 2001, section 7031 was amended to allow consumers to sue and "recover all compensation paid to the unlicensed contractor for performance of any act or contract." (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031(b).) Thus, not only is an unlicensed contractor prohibited from suing for money due, but the contractor could actually be forced to return money paid-including monies passed on to subcontractors-even for work properly performed.
      The pecuniary risk under section 7031 makes it crucial to counsel construction contractor clients against working without a license.
     
      LICENSE REQUIRED
     
      One acts as a "contractor" when the person "undertakes to ... construct, alter, repair, add to, subtract from, improve, move, wreck or demolish any building, highway, road, parking facility, railroad, excavation or other structure, project, development or improvement, or to do any part thereof, including the erection of scaffolding or other structures or works in connection therewith." (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7026.) The sale of materials, or a prefabricated structure, arguably falls outside the statute. (See, Walker v. Thornsberry, 97 Cal. App. 3d 842, 848 (1979).)
     
      REMEDY OR WINDFALL
     
      Section 7031(b) allows an owner/ consumer to sue and recover "all compensation paid" to an unlicensed contractor. Though interpretation of the word compensation might be limited to the contractor's "profit," nothing in the statute, its legislative history, or case law supports such a narrow reading.
      A broad interpretation of section 7031(b) compels an unlicensed contractor to return not only money received and kept but also money passed on to subcontractors. Such a devastating result arguably exceeds the statutory purpose of protecting the public from "incompetence and dishonesty." (Holland v. Morse Diesel Int'l., Inc., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1443, 1450 (2001).) It provides unscrupulous consumers a potential windfall. One could knowingly contract with an unlicensed contractor, receive the benefit of satisfactory performance, and still sue to recover all money paid for the job.
      An early version of the amending legislation would have barred consumers from suing unlicensed contractors if they "knew that the contractor was unlicensed prior to the time that any payments were made to the contractor." This limitation was stricken, though, based on a concern that contractors would avoid the license requirement by quietly disclosing their unlicensed status in the fine print of a contract. As the law stands, however, an unlicensed contractor cannot escape the sting of section 7031(b) even by making a full disclosure.
     
      SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
     
      What happens if a contractor becomes unlicensed during part of a construction job? For example, an otherwise properly licensed contractor might be suspended for failing to maintain workers compensation coverage during the performance of a contract (see, Bus. & Prof. Code § 7125.2); similarly, a contractor might not have been licensed when the contract was executed, but obtained a license before work began.
      Earlier cases softened the severity of the license law "by allowing contractors ... to show they had substantially complied with licensure requirements." (MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Orn. & Met. Wks. Co., Inc., 36 Cal. 4th 412, 418 (2005).) But the Legislature tightened the screws in 2001. As the state Supreme Court observed in MW Erectors, amendments to section 7031 make clear that "[t]he judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply" unless the contractor "had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract" for which licensure was required (MW Erectors at 419). Tough medicine, indeed.
      Section 7031 makes it unwise for construction contractors to work without a license. And the amendment allowing consumers to recoup money makes it especially important to counsel clients against taking this risk. Unlicensed contractor clients could be left holding the bag-even for a job well done.
     
      Alex W. Craigie is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Dykema. His practice focuses on business, construction, and real estate litigation.
     

Reader Comments

Elizabeth - August 14, 2008
I wouldn't call this a "windfall." I have learned that they can make it hell to get your money back through a civil process. The average person doesn't have the money to get their money back. I was ripped off badly by someone who tore my whole place apart, promising everything and nothing even approximated completion when he left. Later I learned that he's had other difficulties, but has worked illegally for some time. After I found out that he doesn't have a license, his wife, who was a colleague and referred him to me, stated that he usually works under "owner/builder," which he would be doing illegally, too. She stated that she wouldn't help me and to do what I "need to do." I was without a bathroom for about eight months and still don't have a kitchen almost two years later. He also promised many other things that were left undone.. After he ran through all of my cash and accomplished nothing, he charged my credit card in anger and I haven't gotten sufficient help from the credit card company. He ran the charges through his son's Fine Art company in San Francisco and the two concocted a fake invoice using the art company's name and listed things I'd already paid for in cash previously. His son submitted the fake invoice each of the six times that I called back to dispute the charges and he also submitted a page of mostly false statements claiming that I had ordered the "materials" from his art company in San Francisco and his dad was merely the subcontractor and delivery agent. They tried to write it up for "materials only" in order to circumvent the unlicensed contractor codes. I have gone through two attorneys and lost more money than I can even account for. have a civil suit and both the of the “gentlemen” were served. The fake contractor decided not to even respond and the son is playing games. People have no idea how traumatizing the whole experience is because you have no outward injuries. I referred the matter to the Contractor’s State License Board and they have referred it for prosecution. That is my only real hope.

We welcome your comments!

Name

E-mail: (will not be published)

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.

Enter the characters on the left: