Georgia Court Upholds Verdict: Unlicensed Contractor Cannot Enforce Contract

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently held in BENNETT v. CASHIN et al., GA. App., A23A1708  (January 17, 2024), that a contract with an unlicensed contractor for home repair or other work on a property that requires a license is unenforceable.

Then there is another group of contractors and home repairmen who are outright con artists, aiming to trick you out of your money.

This legal case involves an appeal challenging a trial court order granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding a jury’s verdict in favor of Dan Bennett. The essential argument is that Bennett, an unlicensed contractor, cannot enforce a contract for work requiring a license, and the court affirms this decision.

Facts and Procedural Posture:

Philip and Kelli Cashin hired Bennett to replace the roof on their house, with additional work beyond the roof replacement.

Bennett personally performed roofing repairs but hired subcontractors for extra work, including replacing rotting columns on the front of the house.

Bennett filed a complaint against the Cashins for breach of contract when they failed to pay.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, the Cashins requested a directed verdict, arguing that Bennett was ineligible to recover because he had operated as a general contractor without the required contractor’s license. The trial court reserved its ruling on the motion. The case went to a jury trial, and Bennett won a verdict of $30,000.

After the verdict, the trial court, treating the Cashins’ motion for a directed verdict as a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, granted the motion, stating that Bennett could not recover due to lacking a required contractor license.

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict:

Bennett argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion. The Appellate Court disagreed.

The trial court ruled that the evidence required a verdict contrary to the jury’s because Bennett did not have a contractor license as required by OCGA § 43-41-17, which mandates a statewide licensing system for residential and general contractors to protect the public from unsafe contractors (Restor-It v. Beck, 352 Ga.App. 613, 835 S.E.2d 398 (2019)). OCGA § 43-41-17(a) prohibits unlicensed individuals or businesses from engaging in contracting, and subsection (b) renders contracts made in violation of this rule unenforceable.

Bennett presented no evidence to dispute the trial court’s finding that the repair work required a general contractor license, which he did not hold. He relied on a stipulation of facts instead of a trial transcript, which confirmed that he acted as the general contractor and hired subcontractors without having a license.

Bennett argued he was exempt under OCGA § 43-41-17(g), which allows unlicensed individuals to perform repair work if they disclose their unlicensed status and the work does not affect structural integrity. However, Bennett did not disclose his unlicensed status to the Cashins, and multiple witnesses testified that the work involved structural components, disqualifying him from the exemption.

Thus, Bennett was barred from enforcing the contract due to his lack of a required license, and the trial court did not err in granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (Fleetwood v. Lucas, 354 Ga.App. 320, 840 S.E.2d 720 (2020); Restor-It, supra at 623).

Although Bennett suggested remanding the case for the trial court to determine if some portion of the jury’s verdict met the license exemption,  the Appellate Court declined, stating that the exemption doesn’t apply since Bennett did not disclose his lack of a contractor license. OCGA § 43-41-17 (g).

In conclusion, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, stating that Bennett, lacking the required contractor license, cannot enforce the contract, and the trial court did not err in granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Home Repair Fraud

Most building contractors and subcontractors are legitimate, but some may lack competence or integrity, perform substandard repairs, fail to complete work as agreed, overcharge for their services, or do unlicensed work.

If you have concerns about potential home repair fraud, exploitation, mistreatment, or excessive charges from a contractor or company working on your property, don’t hesitate to contact Diwan Law. We offer a complimentary evaluation to help address your situation.