[CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

Fri Jun 19 13:28:25 PDT 2020

Dear Colleagues,

I remembered the case and I think I managed to find it. MGM v. Surety Co., 57 So.3d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

I think the issue is that the statute doesn't define local non-licensure as non-licensure for the purposes of the statute.  Instead, you have to look to the source of the other licensure requirement and whether it prescribes penalties.

That being said, I would look very closely at what is and isn't allowed to be set by local government in terms of what effects they can impose on the substantive rights between two persons (preventing enforcement) - as opposed to what they can do from a government v. person standpoint (fines, etc...).  I am not saying local government can't do it, I'm just saying don't assume that it can set whatever penalty it wants.

The case itself goes into the general test from the restatement of what to do when a violation of law occurs.

Sincerely,
Jeremy T. Cranford

____________________________________________
Jeremy T. Cranford, Attorney, LL.M. (Real Estate)
Board Certified Specialist in Real Estate Law
Ward & Ketchersid, P.A.
1241 Airport Rd., Ste. H, Destin, FL 32541
850.837.5507 | Fax: 850.650.9659
jcranford at flaattorney.com<mailto:jcranford at flaattorney.com>
www.flaattorney.com<http://www.flaattorney.com/>
Licensed in Florida & Missouri
____________________________________________
This email message is being sent from an Attorney with the law firm of Ward & Ketchersid, P.A. (the "Firm") who is likely to be acting on behalf of a client thereof.  First and because this email is likely to contain confidential and/or privileged information, please protect the information contained herein from being accessed or accessible by any other person.  Second, if you have any reason to believe you should not have received this email message, please inform the Firm immediately and delete/destroy all copies hereof.  Third and if you are not presently a client of the Firm, unless this email contains a specific statement that you have become a client of the Firm, (1) do not construe anything within this email message to establish an attorney-client relationship with you and (2) do not disclose any information to the Firm that you would expect the Firm to hold in confidence.
____________________________________________

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of Dan Vega
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 2:52 PM
To: Fred Dudley <dudley at mylicenselaw.com>; Gibbons, Michael <Michael.Gibbons at lowndes-law.com>; Daniel Greene <dangreenelaw at yahoo.com>; clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

A few months ago, I read a case from the 3d dealing with a local licensure failure.  The ruling, to the best of my memory, was to take local licensure issues on a case by case basis depending on the gravity of the failure, type of license, stated reasons for the licensure requirement etc.

I don't have the case handy but I know it was from the 3d.

thx

Daniel R. Vega, Esq.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Court Mediator
Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, PLLC
201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Telephone: (305) 443-2043
Facsimile:  (305) 443-2048
Cell:  (305) 962-5186
E-mail: dvega at tevtlaw.com<mailto:dvega at tevtlaw.com>
www.tevtlaw.com<http://www.tevtlaw.com>

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D6464D.2C4761B0]

The information contained in this email message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of Fred Dudley
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:41 PM
To: Gibbons, Michael <Michael.Gibbons at lowndes-law.com<mailto:Michael.Gibbons at lowndes-law.com>>; Daniel Greene <dangreenelaw at yahoo.com<mailto:dangreenelaw at yahoo.com>>; clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

I haven't seen any cases on this point, but it's an interesting one. I respectfully disagree, though, with your conclusion, because I maintain that the removal of "local" from that section may have, in fact, viscerated the entire section. Any takers?

Sent from Mail<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306792977&sdata=Io%2BicbeFSpRFsVyCdq2n5jj5Bw3rNL1h%2Fw%2FOTEhwjuA%3D&reserved=0> for Windows 10

From: Gibbons, Michael<mailto:Michael.Gibbons at lowndes-law.com>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:28 PM
To: Daniel Greene<mailto:dangreenelaw at yahoo.com>; clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

I have not recently researched caselaw on the issue but my interpretation of Fla. Stat. s.489.128(1)(a) is that if a state license is not required for the scope of work at issue, then a contractor/subcontractor cannot be found to be unlicensed under Fla. Stat. s 489.128 (and therefore suffer loss of legal and equitable rights relating to the contract).  On flip side, the fact that a contractor may have a local issued license (but not a state issued license) will not help that contractor avoid 489.128 issues if the scope of work at issue requires a state issued license under Ch. 489.

Michael Gibbons
Shareholder
215 N. Eola Dr. | Orlando, FL 32801
D: 407.418.6378 | P: 407.843.4600
Email<mailto:Michael.Gibbons at lowndes-law.com> | Website<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flowndes-law.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306802973&sdata=i89xmW%2FRbUGCU7EfC%2BE5H%2FyzlK2VmpF8kX7UGxxbtSE%3D&reserved=0> | Bio<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flowndes-law.com%2Fpeople%2FMichael-Gibbons&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306802973&sdata=GCqMCIko6mtc7CXgkcgs%2Bj8AS5%2Bfu5IR5L%2FAS9Qstj4%3D&reserved=0> | VCard<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flowndeslaw.dpmlocal.com%2Fadmin%2Fvcard%2Fgenerate.php%3Fid%3D64&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306812967&sdata=1RKPrXvBwTnvb0mDo%2Bvh3V980%2Bl90FRGZYKKS1gN140%3D&reserved=0>

[cid:image002.png at 01D6464D.FCDB60B0]
LOCAL ROOTS. BROAD REACH. SM

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of Daniel Greene
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:00 PM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] unlicensed contracting question

CAUTION: THIS IS AN EXTERNAL EMAIL

Can anyone point me to a case or some authority discussing a contractor being licensed by a local authority (county/city) but not a state license under ch 489?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Daniel Greene
Daniel M. Greene, P.A.
Florida Board Certified in Construction Law
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Civil and Appellate Mediator
P.O. Box 3092
Orlando, FL 32802-3092
407-448-5391
www.dangreenelaw.com<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dangreenelaw.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CDVega%40tevtlaw.com%7Cd40849f40bfd4433621308d81489c759%7C77483cb9f33c4c7686e8bcfe43eb03ef%7C0%7C0%7C637281929306812967&sdata=lzNMep3MWr26Zik5oamFQFpAd7b6Ti5%2B3N8MN0LhvyY%3D&reserved=0>
dan at dangreenelaw.com<mailto:dan at dangreenelaw.com>
dangreenelaw at gmail.com<mailto:dangreenelaw at gmail.com>

To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
___________
NOTE: This e-mail is from Daniel M. Greene, P.A., and is intended for the recipient(s)only. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail and do not copy or disclose it. If you are not an existing client, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Daniel M. Greene, P.A. that you expect to be confidential. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert, you should maintain its contents in confidence to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege.

Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail communication and the attachment(s) hereto, if any, are intended solely for the information and use of the addressee(s) identified above and may contain information which is legally privileged from disclosure and/or otherwise confidential. If a recipient of this e-mail communication is not an addressee (or an authorized representative of an addressee), such recipient is hereby advised that any review, disclosure, reproduction, re-transmission or other dissemination or use of this e-mail communication (or any information contained herein) is strictly prohibited. If you are not an addressee and have received this e-mail communication in error, please advise the sender of that circumstance either by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800) 356-6818, immediately delete this e-mail communication from any computer and destroy all physical copies of same.

Replies Filtered: Any incoming reply to this e-mail communication or other e-mail communication to us will be electronically filtered for "spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply or other e-mail communications to us being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that reason, we cannot guarantee that we will receive your reply or other e-mail communications to us and/or that we will receive the same in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail.

[v4.30]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20200619/bf2dbbd2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8261 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20200619/bf2dbbd2/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3401 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20200619/bf2dbbd2/image002-0001.png>