Legal Question in Construction Law in California

Re: Error in judgement in small claim court

Without reviewing all of the evidence that you introduced I can not predict whether the judge erred but from your question it appears that he did err and abused his discretion so that the case should be reversed.

The seminal CA Supreme Court on licensure is MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental and Metal Works Co. , Inc. (2005) 36 C4th 412. In that case the Ca Sup Ct stated that because the contractor was not "properly licensed" for the first two weeks of the job when the job was nearly one year long then contractor could not recover or sue under B & P 7031.

Unlicensed contractors activities are generally covered by B & P 7031. B & P 7031 precludes recovery by a contractor in a lawsuit (if the contractor cued you and cross complained) even if the person who the unlicensed contractor contracted with knew the person was unlicensed (Construction Fin., LLC v Perlite Plastering Co (1997) 53 CA4th 170).

Also the burden of proof that the contractor was properly licensed at all times when the work was performed is on the contractor so when you allege that he is unlicensed the contractor must show his pocket ID and/or license to the court. (B & P 7031(d) and Buzgheia v. Leasco Sierra Grove (1997) 60 CA4th 374.)

Furthermore, you are correct that under B & P 7031(b) the unlicensed contractor must "disgorge" or pay back all the money that you paid to him-even if he did all of the work perfectly. (See B & P 7031(b) .

I hope this helps and thank you for the question.