[RPPTL-constructionlaw] 489.128 Fla.Stat. &failure to have a certificate of authority

[Gibbons, Michael]

   The argument you make is a policy one that properly belongs to the
Legislature.  Back in 2000, the Legislature effectively made the policy
choice of rejecting this argument by deleting the former "savings
clause" provision that expressly permitted unlicensed contractors to
revive their dead claim by belatedly getting licensed.  The legislative
history to that bill deleting the savings clause makes it clear that it
was the Legislature's intent to eliminate belated attempts to obtain
licensure and to mandate unequivocally that licensure be evaluated
solely at time of contracting.

   Florida's strict licensure legislation was borne in part out of
necessity to curb contracting abuses arising out of "stormchasers"
descending upon our shores after destructive hurricanes when there is a
tremendous demand for construction services.  Requiring paperwork and
licensure serves to reduce the real threat posed by trunkslammers with
hand tools and business cards (and without insurance, capital and
competency) contracting with an unsuspecting and desperate public.  The
employee or consultant qualifier argument sends the wrong message that
you can engage in contracting without proper licensure, insurance,
creditworthiness and net worth and if you are "caught" you can rely on
some licensee willing to rent his license for a fee.  


Michael R. Gibbons
Shareholder
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.
450 South Orange Avenue, 8th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407-418-6378
Fax: 407-843-4444
email: michael.gibbons at lowndes-law.com
website: http://www.lowndes-law.com



-----Original Message-----
From: constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Tina
Caraballo
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:47 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 489.128 Fla.Stat. &failure to have
a certificate of authority

Obviously this is not the preferred method and all contractors should
complete the required paperwork.  While the contractor may be subject to
discipline, it should not lose the ability to enforce its contract.
This is a core question of the role and purpose of the CILB.  Do we want
to bring contractors under the regulation umbrella or do we want to just
say you made a mistake on your paperwork so you lose that $500000
contract claim and we don't care that you went out of business?    Under
the prior cases it was held to be a factual determination of whether the
qualifier actually met the definition.  In most instances the business
organization was properly qualified, but after the date of the contract.
Isn't it more appropriate for that contractor to be disciplined by the
Board and continue to operate?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "Gibbons, Michael" <Michael.Gibbons at lowndes-law.com>
Sender: <constructionlaw-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:48:32
To: RPPTL constructionlaw<constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Reply-To: RPPTL constructionlaw <constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] 489.128 Fla. Stat.
	&failure	to	have	a	certificate of authority

_______________________________________________
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw

_______________________________________________
constructionlaw mailing list
constructionlaw at lists.flabarrpptl.org
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/constructionlaw

This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast.  For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com