This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiffs hired the Defendant, an unlicensed contractor, to fabricate and install custom cabinets and countertops for their new home. A written contract specified that the Defendant would produce and install the items. The Defendant later claimed that the agreement only included fabrication, not installation, and that he did not charge for installation. The Plaintiffs alleged incomplete work despite paying $46,727.21, while the Defendant claimed they owed an additional $18,666.11. The Defendant filed a lien on the Plaintiffs' home, prompting the Plaintiffs to sue for cancellation of the lien and damages (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: Granted partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs, holding that the Defendant's lien was void under the Construction Industries Licensing Act (CILA) because he was unlicensed. The Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs: Argued that the Defendant violated the CILA by performing work requiring a contractor's license without being licensed. They contended that the Defendant's lien was invalid and sought its cancellation (para 5).
- Defendant: Claimed that he only charged for fabricating the cabinets and countertops, not for installation, and thus did not require a license under the CILA. He argued that the lien and his claim for compensation were valid (para 5).
Legal Issues
- Does the Construction Industries Licensing Act (CILA) bar an unlicensed contractor from asserting a lien or seeking compensation for work that includes installation?
- Can an unlicensed contractor recover compensation for fabrication work if installation was performed without charge?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment, holding that the Defendant's lien was void and his claims were barred under the CILA (para 21).
Reasons
Per Fry J. (Castillo and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
- The CILA prohibits unlicensed contractors from seeking compensation or filing liens for work requiring a license, including installation (para 8).
- Even if the Defendant did not charge for installation, the agreement to perform installation violated the CILA's public policy, which aims to protect consumers from unlicensed contractors (paras 13-15).
- Allowing recovery for fabrication alone would undermine the CILA by enabling contractors to circumvent licensing requirements through creative contract drafting (para 16).
- The Defendant's equitable defenses, including the Plaintiffs' alleged knowledge of his unlicensed status, were rejected as irrelevant under established case law (para 20).
- The Court emphasized the strong public policy against unlicensed contracting, outweighing any perceived unfairness to the Defendant (para 17).