Another Unlicensed Contractor Case. “There Are Eight Million Stories In The Naked City. This Has Been One Of Them.”

California has a goal of precluding unlicensed contractors from maintaining actions for compensation, in order to assure contracting is performed by licensed contractors. There have been legions of cases involving one peculiar situation after another. In the instant matter, plaintiff, the live person, became a licensed general building contractor in 1995, and operated a sole proprietorship. During the course of constructing a home for defendant couple, plaintiff incorporated his business, and in 2005 his contractor’s license was reissued to the corporation. Defendants contended they didn’t have to pay plaintiff, the corporation, for the work. Plaintiff prevailed in both the trial and appellate courts. After noting that at no time was work done on defendants’ home by an unlicensed contractor, the appellate court stated: “[W]e hold [Business and Professions Code] section 7031 does not apply to the unique situation here because to do so would not advance the statute’s goal of precluding unlicensed contractors from maintaining actions for compensation.” (E.J. Franks Construction, Inc. v. Sahota (Cal. App. Fifth Dist.; June 5, 2014)226 Cal.App.4th 1123, [172 Cal.Rptr.3d 778].)