# Does the homeowner have to pay?



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

Hypothetical situation:

Homeowner hires an electrician to do some work on his/her house. Electrician comes out, and does the work. Between the work being done and getting the bill, the homeowner finds out the electrician is not licensed. Assuming this takes place in a geographical area that legally requires licensing, does the homeowner still have to pay the electrician?


If you are familiar with the laws in your area regarding this, please choose one of the first three options. If you're just guessing or don't know, then choose one of the last three.


----------



## GnB Co. (Apr 8, 2009)

I heard of this happening befor,
Now the electrician had a contract with the home owner to do the work and the contract was fullfilled but the homeowner did not want to pay him because of him not being licensed, So the electrician went to the courts and won. So he did get paid for the work. but in the long run he got fined for doing the work in the city without being licensed.


----------



## nEighter (Nov 24, 2008)

dog eat dog world out there..


----------



## rbsremodeling (Nov 12, 2007)

Depending on what the unlicensed contractor did. 

If the work was under $500 bucks he may be entitled to get paid. Over that amount and depending on the type of work he did he'd screw the pooch here


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

480sparky said:


> Hypothetical situation:
> 
> Homeowner hires an electrician to do some work on his/her house. Electrician comes out, and does the work. Between the work being done and getting the bill, the homeowner finds out the electrician is not licensed. Assuming this takes place in a geographical area that legally requires licensing, does the homeowner still have to pay the electrician?
> 
> ...


Is there more to this?:whistling


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

Framer53 said:


> Is there more to this?:whistling


No, that's all there is.


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

No licensing in this area, so I'll just blather through my hat.

I'd say that if the work is done properly, the homeowner is ethically obligated to pay, license or not. However, as far as I know, the courts pretty universally hold that any contract which obligates any party to commit an illegal act is in itself illegal and unenforceable.

On the other other hand, the court usually has the option in a case like this to grant at least a partial award for materials/service rendered. Depends on whether the judge is having a good day.


----------



## gallerytungsten (Jul 5, 2007)

Missing from your scenario is whether the sparky represented himself as licensed, or led the customer to believe that.


----------



## Handymanservice (Mar 1, 2009)

*So, hypothetically speaking....*

Here we go, a certain Handyman built a shed for a customer and also moved their existing shed to another city and reassembled. Customer contracted with Handyman, Handyman fulfilled all obligations, got paid by customer and then got sued by customer.
Called customer, they said "too bad you are unlicensed", went to court. Not only were they awarded the money they paid Handyman, but additional fee's and got to keep the shed too! (about $3,500.00). Oh yeah, they sold the other shed that was moved for $1500.00. They also won judgment for the money charged to move it.
* If you work without a license you are going to have problems.*
Same customer contacted CSLB, Handyman was slapped with a $1200.00 contracting without a license fine and is now on the "radar" so to speak.
In this "hypothetical" instance, I would most definitely say the homeowner will not have to pay.
If you are in California, I GUARANTEE that the homeowner will not have to pay. But you will! Good Luck.


----------



## Dale S. (Jul 11, 2007)

I know of a situation in Oregon where this exact scenario occurred. No, the homeowner did not have to pay (legally). Ethically, I am of the mind that the homeowner should pay. But how can you talk ethics in a situation where the contractor was not ethical to begin with?

dale


----------



## Roofs R Us (Jul 2, 2009)

They will do anything not to pay!!! If it wasn't this it would be something else.


----------



## DetailHandyman (Jul 21, 2008)

Roofs R Us said:


> They will do anything not to pay!!! If it wasn't this it would be something else.



I would imagine there are morally deficient homeowners who "unknowingly" hire unlicensed contractors just so they can weasel out of paying later. 

Not saying I support the hacks...but the HO's are just as bad sometimes.


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

DetailHandyman said:


> I would imagine there are morally deficient homeowners who "unknowingly" hire unlicensed contractors just so they can weasel out of paying later.
> 
> Not saying I support the hacks...but the HO's are just as bad sometimes.


If a guy is working without a license and the HO does not have to legally pay the guy without a license, why is the HO morally deficient?

Shouldn't the unlicensed contractor be the morally deficient person?

In Florida as well as many other states, an unlicensed contractor not only has no right to lien or sue, they can be held liable for triple damages on top of not getting paid.


----------



## FthillGuy (Jun 22, 2009)

My wife was im small claims court because of a case relating to her job. While waiting for her case to be heard, she watched another case unfold in the courtroom:

A contractor was suing a HO for a balance owed to him for work he had completed. The judge was looking everything over, and noticed that the contractor's license had lapsed, and was expired on the date that he had performed the work for the HO. 

The judge told the contractor that because his license had been expired on the date that he had perfomed the work, the HO was not obligated to pay him anything! The HO won, and legally ripped off the contractor, because the contractor hadn't renewed his license on time.


----------



## mics_54 (Oct 28, 2008)

California has specific laws pertaining to this issue. Unlicensed contractors do not have to be paid there under any circumstances.

In other places I thnk it would depend on the implied licensure. If some one presented themselves as licensed but were in fact not...there's no reason to expect them to be paid.


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

FthillGuy said:


> My wife was im small claims court because of a case relating to her job. While waiting for her case to be heard, she watched another case unfold in the courtroom:
> 
> A contractor was suing a HO for a balance owed to him for work he had completed. The judge was looking everything over, and noticed that the contractor's license had lapsed, and was expired on the date that he had performed the work for the HO.
> 
> The judge told the contractor that because his license had been expired on the date that he had perfomed the work, the HO was not obligated to pay him anything! The HO won, and legally ripped off the contractor, because the contractor hadn't renewed his license on time.


I thought a Jidge was supposed to try the case based on the facts presented to him, the lapse in the license should have been presented as a defense for non payment by the HO, not the Judge.

IMO the Judge went from being an impartial judge trying the facts of the case when he stumbled upon this information and rled on it.


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

Wow, I gotta say you really have that "pompous ass" thing down to a fine art. :thumbsup:



bwalley said:


> If a guy is working without a license and the HO does not have to legally pay the guy without a license, why is the HO morally deficient?


If he knowingly hired the guy without ever planning to pay him, IMO he's a worse scumbag than the unlicensed worker who's just trying to make a buck (assuming he's not just scamming the HO). That's at the very least unethical as all getout.



bwalley said:


> IMO the Judge went from being an impartial judge trying the facts of the case when he stumbled upon this information and rled on it.


There's no lack of impartiality in looking at the documents related to a case and observing the facts contained therein. Just from that minimal description of the case, it sounds as though he was _too_ impartial. Just because he [may have] simply goofed and didn't get his license renewed when he should have should not entitle the HO to a completely free ride. :no:


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

Tinstaafl said:


> Wow, I gotta say you really have that "pompous ass" thing down to a fine art. :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have no sympathy for an unlicensed contractor, and yes people will purposely hire them to do work for them so they can avoid paying them, these unlicensed contractors deserve what they get.

What is more unethical contracting without a license, or following the law about not having to pay an unlicensed contractor?

The unlicensed contractor is committing a felony (In Florida), the HO who does not pay the criminal unlicensed contractor is not breaking any laws.

The lapse in the license issue should have been able to be dealt with, it sounded like the guy was licensed during some of the work, so not paying the guy based on that is BS.

The law about not having to pay unlicensed contractors was meant to keep unlicensed contractors (those who never had a license, or those working outside the scope of their license) from having legal recourse, not as a way of not paying a contractor who had a lapse in his license.

Florida has specific wording to protect us licensed contractors against unlicensed claims, for instance if I have a valid state license, but I don't have an occupational license, I am still considered licensed.


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

bwalley said:


> What is more unethical contracting without a license, or following the law about not having to pay an unlicensed contractor?


Following the law is laudable, of course. But purposely using it to cheat someone out of payment owed for real work, licensed or not, is just shameful.



> The lapse in the license issue should have been able to be dealt with, it sounded like the guy was licensed during some of the work, so not paying the guy based on that is BS.


Now see, here, in the same post, you've completely reversed yourself. While I happen to fully agree with this latter statement, according to you the law is the law. That being the case, by the tone of most of your posts, he deserves no sympathy and no quarter.

I guess you don't have everything as well dialed in as I thought. Most pompous asses are consistent with their biases. :laughing:


----------



## bwalley (Jan 7, 2009)

Tinstaafl said:


> Following the law is laudable, of course. But purposely using it to cheat someone out of payment owed for real work, licensed or not, is just shameful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If an unlicensed contractor wants to break the law by working without a license, he should expect to get burned every now and then.

The great thing about the law is not only does the unlicensed contractor not have any legal recourse as far as non payment for the work he did, this also includes materials, he can also be sued for triple damages, be arrested and fined for working without a license.

You seem to have a lot of sympathy for unlicensed contractors, are you licensed?


----------



## Brickie (Jun 15, 2006)

thom said:


> NM law is quite clear, one has no obligation to pay any unlicensed contractor for providing contracting services.
> 
> .



Indiana law is quite clear, the HO would have to pay.


----------



## Electric_Light (Nov 25, 2007)

Brickie said:


> That's totally BS.
> 
> I know plenty of guys that finished their apprenticeships & received an nice fancy diploma from the US Dept. of Labor certifying that they are Journeyman Electricians. During the week they work for Union Contractors as Journeyman Electricians. On the weekends they do side jobs. They are not "licensed contractors" but they are still Journey Electricians & they are very good at what they do.
> 
> BTW, this side job thing is quite common in all the union trades.


What wasn't clear... does the electrician have electrician license?

We're talking about a difference similar to a doctor working outside of his office vs a someone who doesn't have MD posing as a doctor. 

You don't crash your car everyday and you might have a very good driving record, but that doesn't mean you get to drive around your weekend car uninsured.

Side jobbers not covered by liability coverage and workers' comp are putting the property owners and others at risk.


----------



## tedanderson (May 19, 2010)

Taking everything that has been said into advisement here, I gotta say that karma will always get you when you least want it to.

So like if you legally refuse to pay an unlicensed worker, what happens if you encounter a problem? Does he have to fix it? Is he still liable for damages? Do you have any form of recourse? Can he deny that he ever did work over there?


----------



## Brickie (Jun 15, 2006)

> What wasn't clear... does the electrician have electrician license?


Some places require licensing, some don't




> We're talking about a difference similar to a doctor working outside of his office vs a someone who doesn't have MD posing as a doctor.


Straw man argument. 




> Side jobbers not covered by liability coverage and workers' comp are putting the property owners and others at risk.


Many homeowners don't care. Price & expertise matter. Like I said, Union guys get plenty of side jobs with ads as simple as this:


http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwi/sks/2887092676.html


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

Brickie said:


> I know plenty of guys that finished their apprenticeships & received an nice fancy diploma from the US Dept. of Labor certifying that they are Journeyman Electricians. During the week they work for Union Contractors as Journeyman Electricians. On the weekends they do side jobs. They are not "licensed contractors" but they are still Journey Electricians & they are very good at what they do.


In NM that's two different licenses. You must carry a journeyman card to do electrical work. That card is what determines that you are legally qualified to do the trade work. Sure, handyman hank might say he can do electrical but who knows?

You must have a contractors license to contract for the work. That means, you are a legitimate business, you have passed the competency test and the Business and Law test. You know that you are required to have Workmens Comp, withhold taxes, charge/pay the state sales tax, procure and pay for permits, schedule inspections, and pay all fees. 

Our law is clear, if you don't have a contractors license, you cannot contract to do any work. Without a legal contract, the HO has no obligation to pay. 

In this case, there is NO AGREEMENT, NO CONTRACT because the state law clearly says that there is no valid contract between a HO and an individual who is not licensed. 

You say these "Journeymen" are "good at what they do". Are they good at covering with Workmens Comp? Liability insurance? Withholding taxes? Sales taxes? Permitting? Fees? If unlicensed they are doing only a portion of the job. Their actions are evidence of their irresponsibility, and dishonesty. There is no reason to believe they are somehow competent at their trade.


----------



## kevjob (Aug 14, 2006)

thom said:


> In NM that's two different licenses. You must carry a journeyman card to do electrical work. That card is what determines that you are legally qualified to do the trade work. Sure, handyman hank might say he can do electrical but who knows?
> 
> You must have a contractors license to contract for the work. That means, you are a legitimate business, you have passed the competency test and the Business and Law test. You know that you are required to have Workmens Comp, withhold taxes, charge/pay the state sales tax, procure and pay for permits, schedule inspections, and pay all fees.
> 
> ...


WOW I wish that was same here in CO. Here we have handymen(not all are hacks) doing full basement finishes under homeowner permits. I bet that would all change if the Ho didnt have to pay when he finished up. I have torn down some work by these clowns, junction boxes every 10 ft burried in ceilings, walls, live wires left in walls... :blink:


----------



## Brickie (Jun 15, 2006)

> Our law is clear, if you don't have a contractors license, you cannot contract to do any work.


That's not the law here in Indiana. Again, licensing laws vary form community to community.




> If unlicensed they are doing only a portion of the job.


No, that's not true. They completed the project as outlined in the proposal




> There is no reason to believe they are somehow competent at their trade.


Again, not true. 

IBEW trained. They carry the NECA & IBEW Certification Card. Worn only by experienced IBEW electricians and professional NECA contractors, the Certification Card is a visual reflection of their commitment, expertise and training. 

The card represents thousands of hours of apprentice and ongoing journeyman education. They been working for NECA contractors for years. 

They do side jobs on weekends.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

kevjob said:


> WOW I wish that was same here in CO. Here we have handymen(not all are hacks) doing full basement finishes under homeowner permits. I bet that would all change if the Ho didnt have to pay when he finished up. I have torn down some work by these clowns, junction boxes every 10 ft burried in ceilings, walls, live wires left in walls... :blink:


There are a lot of licensed hacks and cheats. Licensing is a gov't scam. It's to generate money only. They hide behind consumer protection, but it's a fraud.

If a "handyman" has all the knowledge of a licensed contractor, he is simply an unlicensed electrician. A piece of paper does not make one an electrician.

I agree with Tin, they are morally obligated to pay, period. Legally is a different story. But just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it right. I think Slavery was legal at one time...and I think that alcohol was illegal some time in the not so distant past.

And I chuckled at the doctor analogy...I haven't seen a doctor in years, they have something called a physicians assistant..there goes that argument! :laughing:


----------



## kevjob (Aug 14, 2006)

Of course there are. 

My point is that I had to learn about business side of things, legal matters, insurance etc... along with verifying my experience when I took my GC tests. They can be the greatest tradesman in the world, but they will do so being un insured for that work here in my state. That then shifts the responsibility to the HO not the contractor, dangerous game to play.

That post is from MY POINT OF VIEW.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

But you don't need a state license to prove that you have the proper insurance. I have WC and Liability. All that my customer, or potential customer, has to do is ask for a copy of my current cert. Why is it that we look to gov't to protect us, when common sense should prevail?

As for general knowledge, if you pass the test, it just means that you know just enough to pass. Do you know what they call the guy who was last in his class at medical school? Doctor.


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

TNT, since licensing is not a requirement in Il, this isn't an issue for you. Here, you cannot get WC without a license, you can't get liability or pull a permit. You can't be registered with the state to collect/pay sales tax (we do that here) so you can't do your job. A guy who is licensed as a journeyman cannot possibly do the whole job, he can only do a portion of it in NM. Because all of the job must be done, including insurance, taxes, permits, a journeyman who is not a licensed contractor is not capable of doing his job. 

You can argue forever that the job consists of doing the trade work only, but the reality is the job is a lot more than trade work. 

Life really is different in a state that requires licensing. I was a contractor not far from you back in the 1970's-1980's (West Chicago) prior to moving to Albuquerque. 

I'm not a big fan of licensing but the state never asked me my opinion. I did pass all my tests and had everything ready to go prior to moving here so there would be no time waiting to get licensed here.


----------



## Electric_Light (Nov 25, 2007)

TNTSERVICES said:


> they have something called a physicians assistant..there goes that argument! :laughing:


Correct; an assistant. Which means he can't start seeing patients on the weekends as if he's the physician.

Anarchists would say that licensing is a scam. Lets do a way all forms of government permits and licensing. 

From now on, anyone can design bridges, run pharmaceutical plants, develop nuclear power plants, etc.


----------



## svronthmve (Aug 3, 2008)

Electric_Light said:


> Correct; an assistant. Which means he can't start seeing patients on the weekends as if he's the physician.
> 
> Anarchists would say that licensing is a scam. Lets do a way all forms of government permits and licensing.
> 
> From now on, anyone can design bridges, run pharmaceutical plants, develop nuclear power plants, etc.


What DID we do for centuries before all these licensing issues came into being??

How did all the bridges & buildings get built & stay built for all those years without licensed architects, engineers, & tradesmen?

Me thinks you thinks too highly of licensing!


----------



## Jaws (Dec 20, 2010)

If the HO hired a GC who is supposed to hire licenced trades, but didn't, I have no sympathy for the GC. It sucks to call an electrician to add two plugs, but it's the law.

If the HO hired an Electrical company who is supposed to be licensed, but isn't, no sympathy for the fake Sparky.

If the HO hired a good old boy remodeler/handyman type, and he did good work, the ho doesn't want to pay, the ho is a POS. Plenty of good old boy types who do good work and are just trying to make a decent living around here. Only hvac, electrical and plumbing are licenced here. Lots of old timers who do small jobs for working people who do those things. Imo, its the HOs business who works on there house, not yours. If I break my leg, and want to pay a nurse doing sidework to set it, its my leg. We aren't communists yet.


----------



## primetimeon (Mar 16, 2009)

California courts will not even take a case where the unlicensed is suing for payment if over $500.


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

jawtrs said:


> Imo, its the HOs business who works on there house, not yours.


Providing the HO never wants to sell it. A buyer has the right to expect that what is there was built to codes with full permits/inspections. If a license is required, then an unlicensed guy can't get the permit to do the job.

Maybe if there was a law that all work done without a license must show up on a title search, failure to have the work recorded would be a serious felony. Still people will cheat then when they sell they will conveniently forget.


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

svronthmve said:


> What DID we do for centuries before all these licensing issues came into being??


Maybe I'll expand my business to "building and brain surgery".


----------



## svronthmve (Aug 3, 2008)

thom said:


> Maybe I'll expand my business to "building and brain surgery".


I'm sure you'd find a few customers who are willing....


----------



## svronthmve (Aug 3, 2008)

thom said:


> Providing the HO never wants to sell it. A buyer has the right to expect that what is there was built to codes with full permits/inspections. If a license is required, then an unlicensed guy can't get the permit to do the job.
> 
> Maybe if there was a law that all work done without a license must show up on a title search, failure to have the work recorded would be a serious felony. Still people will cheat then when they sell they will conveniently forget.


That's what private inspections are for....

You guys who push this mandatory licensing crap & are willing to sell your freedoms out on a national / state / local level, are killing this country.

Do a good job, learn your trade, and be the best in your field. Work on a referral basis & the rest will take care of itself!

If you're good, people will hire you. And respectable people will want to buy your house when you sell. Keep it like crap & hire JimBobJoe Hack to do your improvements & you'll get what you deserve when you go to sell it.

If you want to live under a bureaucratic dictitorial regulating money grabbing system, then move THERE! Quit dragging the USA into the cesspool utopia you'd like to create.


----------

