Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Law Blog - Up-to-date information on Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Law

The Fifth Day, LLC v. James P. Bolotin, et al., ___ Cal.App.4th ___(March 27, 2009, No KC047712)

By Jon E. Maki & Bram Hanono

The California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District determined that an entity which provided construction management services to a private owner developing commercial real property was not required to be licensed as a contractor pursuant to the Contractors' State License Law ("CSLL") (opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Armstrong, concurrence by Justice Krieger). In a lengthy dissent, Justice Mosk disagreed, highlighting that the intent of the CSLL is to protect consumers from unqualified and unlicensed contractors and predicted that the decision on a case of first impression creates a loophole in the license requirements by allowing unlicensed contractors to call themselves "construction managers."

MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental and Metal Works Co.,
30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 755 (2005)

By Robert T. Sturgeon

The California Supreme Court has clarified the rules under California Business & Professions Code section 7031 regarding an unlicensed contractor's ability to recover compensation for performance of work which requires a contractor's license.

Handyman Connection of Sacramento, Inc. v. Sands
123 Cal. App. 4th 867 (3d Dist Oct. 29, 2004)

Plaintiff contractor appealed trial court judgment affirming Contractors' State License Board decision that plaintiff violated four aspects of Contractors' State License Law related to solicitation and obtaining of a contract to perform home improvement work. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment as to all violations except the charge of using an improper business name.

The court explained that in an administrative mandate case where the only sanction under review is a fine - not revocation, suspension, or restriction of one's license - no fundamental vested right is implicated even though the contractor's violation may be disclosed publicly. In such a case, the trial court may not exercise independent judgment as to administrative findings of fact but must determine only whether substantial evidence supported the administrative findings of fact.