• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Daniel S. Gonzales

What you need to know about Commercial Real Estate | 408.280.0535

  • Home
  • About Daniel S. Gonzales
  • Documents of interest
  • Blog

California revises standards for “substantial compliance” with contractors’ license requirements

May 23, 2017 by Daniel S. Gonzales Leave a Comment

For nearly 80 years, California Civil Code Section 7031 has barred contractors from using the courts to collect payment if they were unlicensed at any time while performing their services. Responding to the perceived injustice of this harsh penalty, the California Supreme Court created a “substantial compliance” exception to this prohibition in the case of Latipac, Inc. v. Superior Court (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 278, allowing contractors to recover if they had a licensed contractor oversee the project despite being in technical violation of the law. After several court rulings greatly expanded this policy, the California legislature amended the statute in 1989 to negate this judicial doctrine in toto, and set up its own standard for substantial compliance by statutory amendments adopted in 1991 and 1993.

The California legislature has revisited of late the conditions for allowing recovery for substantial compliance, paring back the criteria that contractors must satisfy in order to be able to collect, and giving the courts more discretion with regard to allowing such relief. As originally set forth in Civil Code Section 7031(e), a court must allow an unlicensed contractor to recover in the event it found that the contractor (1) was licensed before performing the work, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain its license, (3) did not know or reasonably should not have known that it was not licensed when performing the work, and (4) acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate the license upon learning of its lapse.

Effective January 1, 2017, Assembly Bill 1793 amends Section 7031(e) to revise these standards and their application. Under that legislation, if a court finds that the contractor (1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure, the court may allow recovery by an unlicensed contractor.

Viewed in its totality, the amendment of Section 7031(e) by Assembly Bill 1973 is a mixed bag for unlicensed contractors and their unhappy clients. On the one hand, the amendment eliminates a murky requirement that arguably added little of value, either to the protection of the public or to the assistance of the “innocent” unlicensed contractor. On the other hand, leaving the granting of relief to the discretion of the court without providing any guidance to the courts for the exercise of that discretion makes for further uncertainty.

The bottom line for contractors is this: The facts and circumstances surrounding a contractor’s unlicensed status will matter in the eyes of the courts, so contractors would be well advised to closely monitor the status of their licenses to avoid lapses and eliminate this problem altogether, and to remember that the courts will have latitude in evaluating their conduct in determining whether to grant them relief. Given that Section 7031(b) grants those persons who have made payments to an unlicensed contractor the right to recover those payments in court, the negative results of license gaps seem too high to be cavalier about them.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Search

Sign up for Updates

  • Hidden
    MM slash DD slash YYYY
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Helping you avoid risk, maximize profit, and protect your long term real estate appreciation

Mr. Gonzales is in private practice, providing representation, advice and counsel in complex real estate, corporate, and business transactions on behalf of public and private institutions, businesses, and individuals.

This material has been prepared by Daniel S. Gonzales for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising, a solicitation, or legal advice. Neither delivery nor transmission of this material or the information contained herein is intended to create, and receipt thereof does not constitute formation of, an attorney-client relationship. The reader should not rely upon this information for any purpose without seeking legal advice from a licensed attorney. The information contained in this material is provided only as general information and is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete. Daniel S. Gonzales expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this material.

Recent Posts

  • Prop. 15:  Time to switch off the “third rail” of California politics?
  • Free Virtual Gala (10/22/20) for Law Student Scholarships Presented by La Raza Lawyers of Santa Clara County Charitable Foundation
  • Prop. 19: Making your assessed value more “portable,” but with a nasty twist
  • Residential Landlords Required Under AB3088 to Send Tenants Notice
  • IRS relaxes Opportunity Zone requirements and other rules in response to COVID-19
Copyright © 2022 Daniel S. Gonzales