An owner-builder is a person who has the knowledge and skill of a journeyman, who performs work on his or her own property, and has the skills necessary. A qualified, responsible person must verify them. You may receive credit for technical training, apprentice training, or education instead of the required four years of practical experience. At least one year must be practical experience. Two years after submitting a transcript from a four year degree accredited college, a professional degree in law, or a substantial college or university course, in accounting, architecture, business, construction, technology, etc. Three years upon a certificate of completion of an apprentice program from an accredited apprentice program, a submission of transcripts for four year degree from an accredited college, submission of transcripts for four year degree from an accredited college or university in the field of horticulture or landscape horticulture for the landscaping license.
A Class “A” is a general engineering contractor. The principal business is in connection with fixed work of improvement, specialized engineering knowledge, and skills.
A Class “B” general contractor works in connection with any structure built, to be built, or requiring in its construction the use of at least two unrelated building trades or crafts. However, framing or carpentry projects may be performed without that limitation.
A Class “C” general contractor has 41 separate “C” classifications. This construction work requires specialized skill and its principal contracting business involved the use of specialized building trades or crafts. Manufacturers are considered to be contractors if they are engaged with onsite construction.
There is a “C-61” limited specialty license, which is Section 832.61.
We will continue this in the next blog.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Contractors' State License Board Information ~ ~ ~ Part One
The Contractors' State License Board was established in 1929. Presently, there are two vacated positions with two vacancies. Steve Sands is the Registrar of Contractors.
There are approximately 43 license classifications. The Contractors' State License Board protects consumers by regulating the construction industry through policies, going from granting licenses to revoking licenses.
There are two regions: Northern and Southern. The executive office is in the Northern region.
Generally you have to have four full years of experience at a journeymen level or as a foreman. There can be exceptions. Public personnel working on public projects, officers of the court, are examples. The experience requirement is at least four years of experience to take the exam. However, there are exceptions. The credit for experience has to be at a journeyman level or as a foremen supervising employees, contractor or owner-builder.
A journeyman who has completed an apprentice program, or is an experienced worker not a trainee, and is fully qualified to perform the trade without supervision, can take the exam. The foremen, supervisor, or person taking the exam, must have the knowledge and skill, etc. A contractor is a person who manages the daily activities of a construction business, including field supervision. However, there have been cases that say that you do not have to be out there to do that.
We will continue this in the next blog.
There are approximately 43 license classifications. The Contractors' State License Board protects consumers by regulating the construction industry through policies, going from granting licenses to revoking licenses.
There are two regions: Northern and Southern. The executive office is in the Northern region.
Generally you have to have four full years of experience at a journeymen level or as a foreman. There can be exceptions. Public personnel working on public projects, officers of the court, are examples. The experience requirement is at least four years of experience to take the exam. However, there are exceptions. The credit for experience has to be at a journeyman level or as a foremen supervising employees, contractor or owner-builder.
A journeyman who has completed an apprentice program, or is an experienced worker not a trainee, and is fully qualified to perform the trade without supervision, can take the exam. The foremen, supervisor, or person taking the exam, must have the knowledge and skill, etc. A contractor is a person who manages the daily activities of a construction business, including field supervision. However, there have been cases that say that you do not have to be out there to do that.
We will continue this in the next blog.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
How Nevada and California Handle Their Licensure
Both California and Nevada have rather strict license laws. If you are working in one state, make sure you comply with the laws of that state. Our last blog, “What Do Contractors Do Wrong?” was California specific. We are now going to give you some similarities of California and Nevada in the event that you wish to cross-over and work for the other side.
First and most importantly, you must be licensed in the state in order to do work in that state.
Disciplinary Matters
Nevada is a much smaller state than California and therefore there are many more contractors in California than there are in Nevada. Both states have significant laws. In both states, the gist of the laws are protection of the public. However, as stated previously, you must be properly licensed in the state where you are doing the work. In that the amount of contractors in California and the size of the state itself is so large, disciplinary actions in California take much longer to resolve than disciplinary actions in Nevada, where they can accomplish tasks more quickly. It is not unusual for a California disciplinary case to take one year for resolution.
Although both states have very strong laws, the laws are very similar in that they each have agencies that are intended to protect the public.
The Nevada State Contractors Board specifically states,
You can visit the California Contractors State License Board at http://www.cslb.ca.gov/ for further information about contracting requirements in California.
First and most importantly, you must be licensed in the state in order to do work in that state.
Disciplinary Matters
Nevada is a much smaller state than California and therefore there are many more contractors in California than there are in Nevada. Both states have significant laws. In both states, the gist of the laws are protection of the public. However, as stated previously, you must be properly licensed in the state where you are doing the work. In that the amount of contractors in California and the size of the state itself is so large, disciplinary actions in California take much longer to resolve than disciplinary actions in Nevada, where they can accomplish tasks more quickly. It is not unusual for a California disciplinary case to take one year for resolution.
Although both states have very strong laws, the laws are very similar in that they each have agencies that are intended to protect the public.
The Nevada State Contractors Board specifically states,
“The Contractors State License Board protects consumers by regulating the construction industry through policies that promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public in matters relating to construction.”
You can visit the California Contractors State License Board at http://www.cslb.ca.gov/ for further information about contracting requirements in California.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
What Do Contractors Do Wrong?
Many contractors fail to notify the Contractors’ State License Board of a change of address or telephone number. This leaves you in a bad position if someone from the CSLB or otherwise, tries to contact you.
Some of the things that contractors do wrong is that they don’t get a written contract. This leaves them at the mercy of the owners.
Sometimes, the contract is not well written, again, leaving the contractors at the mercy of the owners.
Contractors should try to know the person that they are doing work for. If there is a problem and it goes to the Contractors Board, chances are you will lose at the Contractors Board.
Contractors should also make sure that all their changes are in writing.
There are three different types of contracts that are required by the Contractors Board. They are Home Improvement (this is the toughest for contractors), New Residential (usually between contractors and home builders), and Service & Repair (which is for contracts up to $750.00).
Don’t become an unlicensed contractor.
Some of the things that contractors do wrong is that they don’t get a written contract. This leaves them at the mercy of the owners.
Sometimes, the contract is not well written, again, leaving the contractors at the mercy of the owners.
Contractors should try to know the person that they are doing work for. If there is a problem and it goes to the Contractors Board, chances are you will lose at the Contractors Board.
Contractors should also make sure that all their changes are in writing.
There are three different types of contracts that are required by the Contractors Board. They are Home Improvement (this is the toughest for contractors), New Residential (usually between contractors and home builders), and Service & Repair (which is for contracts up to $750.00).
Don’t become an unlicensed contractor.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Contractors State License Board Sting Operations
The Contractors' State License Board continually sends out people to handle sting operations. Quite often, an unlicensed contractor, or one who has violated the law, may actually be put in hand cuffs and taken to a local jail. In 2008, the CSLB had a record year for conducting over 150 sting operations.
One such example of the CSLB’s sting operations occurred in the early part of this year in Santa Barbara where the Tea Fire area was and all those homes had burned. Members of the CSLB Statewide Investigative Fraud Team (SWIFT) posed as fire victims. They arrested seven suspects on felony charges that they singled out for leaving business cards, flyers and newspaper ads in the fire zone. The CSLB also tries to reduce the fire victims from getting victimized by posting hundreds of warning signs and continually working with police and district attorneys.
One such example of the CSLB’s sting operations occurred in the early part of this year in Santa Barbara where the Tea Fire area was and all those homes had burned. Members of the CSLB Statewide Investigative Fraud Team (SWIFT) posed as fire victims. They arrested seven suspects on felony charges that they singled out for leaving business cards, flyers and newspaper ads in the fire zone. The CSLB also tries to reduce the fire victims from getting victimized by posting hundreds of warning signs and continually working with police and district attorneys.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Another Case On Substantial Complience
We have written other articles and discussed several cases in our book California Construction Law, regarding California License Law, and more specifically Business and Professions Code section 7031. In the MW Erectors case, which we discussed in our book, we filed an Amicus Brief in opposition citing other options. Unfortunately we did not prevail. We believe the laws in this area are extremely harsh. The case discussed below continues that harshness.
A new case, Great West Contractors, Inc. v. WSS Industrial Construction, Inc., has upheld the decisions in the above referenced cases. In this case, a subcontractor, (WSS Industrial Construction (“WSS”), was barred from bringing a suit against Great West Contractors because WSS was not licensed at all times. WSS is a corporation that had applied for, but not yet obtained, their corporate contractor’s license at the time it submitted its bid. WSS had entered into the contract, ordered parts, and submitted plans before the corporation was actually licensed. However, it had not started actual construction of the site. The RMO of WSS was licensed as an individual and a partnership, but not on behalf of the corporation. The MW Erectors case we have discussed showed that MW Erectors was unlicensed for only a few days, but not “at all times during construction,” and since that case, the law states that “…except as expressly otherwise provided, a contractor may not sue to collect compensation for performance of ‘any act or contract’ requiring a license without alleging that he or she was duly licensed ‘at all times during the performance of that act or contract.’ ”
Business and Professions Code section 7031(e) gives the only exception to the contractor’s licensure requirements. It states that the courts can find there is substantial compliance with the license requirements, “if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a 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, (3) and did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not duly licensed.” This was not the case with WSS, just at it was not with the MW Erectors case, because the corporation was not licensed.
Therefore, the Appellate Court denied WSS’s case, even though the Appellate Court itself agreed that they “are cognizant of the harshness of this result. But the law is clear.”
A new case, Great West Contractors, Inc. v. WSS Industrial Construction, Inc., has upheld the decisions in the above referenced cases. In this case, a subcontractor, (WSS Industrial Construction (“WSS”), was barred from bringing a suit against Great West Contractors because WSS was not licensed at all times. WSS is a corporation that had applied for, but not yet obtained, their corporate contractor’s license at the time it submitted its bid. WSS had entered into the contract, ordered parts, and submitted plans before the corporation was actually licensed. However, it had not started actual construction of the site. The RMO of WSS was licensed as an individual and a partnership, but not on behalf of the corporation. The MW Erectors case we have discussed showed that MW Erectors was unlicensed for only a few days, but not “at all times during construction,” and since that case, the law states that “…except as expressly otherwise provided, a contractor may not sue to collect compensation for performance of ‘any act or contract’ requiring a license without alleging that he or she was duly licensed ‘at all times during the performance of that act or contract.’ ”
Business and Professions Code section 7031(e) gives the only exception to the contractor’s licensure requirements. It states that the courts can find there is substantial compliance with the license requirements, “if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a 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, (3) and did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not duly licensed.” This was not the case with WSS, just at it was not with the MW Erectors case, because the corporation was not licensed.
Therefore, the Appellate Court denied WSS’s case, even though the Appellate Court itself agreed that they “are cognizant of the harshness of this result. But the law is clear.”
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
More On Arbitration
As you all should know, arbitration has become a favorite method of resolving disputes in construction cases. Mediation is another favored method of doing the same. The reason for this favoritism is that you are more likely to get an arbitrator or mediator with construction experience. This is not always true in court where you will have a judge who has no understanding of construction, nor the fact that construction is not a science. I once had a judge who asked me why I subpoenaed the plans since they are so big and dirty!
In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Bruni (“Bruni”) purchased their single family home in a development from James Didion. The contract contained a limited warranty and arbitration provision. Bruni later discovered that their home was defective. Bruni and other homeowners filed suit against the developer alleging construction defects. The homeowners opposed the Motions of the developer stating that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable. The trial court denied the Motions to Compel Arbitration agreeing that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable. The developer appealed. Essentially, the developer was stating that unconscionability must be decided by an arbitrator not the trial court.
The Appellate Court sided with the trial court. The Appellate Court stated that if a party is claiming forgery or fraud, asserting that it never agreed to the arbitration clause, then the court must decide the claim. But if the party is not denying that it agreed to the arbitration clause and instead claims some other defense to the enforcement of the clause, then the court must enforce the arbitration clause and allow an arbitrator to decide the issues.
Here, the Plaintiffs were claiming unconscionability that they never “knowingly agreed” to the arbitration provisions.
Therefore, the trial court and not the arbitrator is required to resolve the unconscionability claim. The reason the court held that the provision was unconscionable was because the provisions were contained in a contract of adhesion (a “take it or leave it” contract), and violated the reasonable expectations of the Plaintiffs (homeowners).
We believe that this is a relatively bad decision. Not because it is unfair, but anyone can say that they did not know what they were signing and therefore the court must decide. Since arbitration is much less expensive than litigation and since many courts are not typically able to resolve complicated construction disputes, this makes it very easy for someone to get out of an arbitration agreement and go to court.
In this case, Mr. and Mrs. Bruni (“Bruni”) purchased their single family home in a development from James Didion. The contract contained a limited warranty and arbitration provision. Bruni later discovered that their home was defective. Bruni and other homeowners filed suit against the developer alleging construction defects. The homeowners opposed the Motions of the developer stating that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable. The trial court denied the Motions to Compel Arbitration agreeing that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable. The developer appealed. Essentially, the developer was stating that unconscionability must be decided by an arbitrator not the trial court.
The Appellate Court sided with the trial court. The Appellate Court stated that if a party is claiming forgery or fraud, asserting that it never agreed to the arbitration clause, then the court must decide the claim. But if the party is not denying that it agreed to the arbitration clause and instead claims some other defense to the enforcement of the clause, then the court must enforce the arbitration clause and allow an arbitrator to decide the issues.
Here, the Plaintiffs were claiming unconscionability that they never “knowingly agreed” to the arbitration provisions.
Therefore, the trial court and not the arbitrator is required to resolve the unconscionability claim. The reason the court held that the provision was unconscionable was because the provisions were contained in a contract of adhesion (a “take it or leave it” contract), and violated the reasonable expectations of the Plaintiffs (homeowners).
We believe that this is a relatively bad decision. Not because it is unfair, but anyone can say that they did not know what they were signing and therefore the court must decide. Since arbitration is much less expensive than litigation and since many courts are not typically able to resolve complicated construction disputes, this makes it very easy for someone to get out of an arbitration agreement and go to court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
