Ark. Code Ann. » Title 17 Chapter 25
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103 (2020)

Penalties — Enforcement. [Effective July 1, 2020.]

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. It is a violation of this chapter for any contractor to knowingly do any of the following:
        1. For a fixed price, commission, fee, or wage attempt to or submit a bid or bids to construct or demolish or contract to construct or demolish, or undertake to construct or demolish, or assume charge in a supervisory capacity or otherwise, or manage the construction, erection, alteration, demolition, or repair of, or has constructed, erected, altered, demolished, or repaired, under his or her or its direction, any building, apartment, condominium, highway, sewer, utility, grading, or any other improvement or structure, when the cost of the work to be done, or done, in the State of Arkansas by the contractor, including, but not limited to, labor and materials, is fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more, without first having procured a license or registration with the proper classification to engage in the business of contracting in this state.
        2. Subdivision (a)(1)(A)(i) of this section does not apply to any demolition work or other work necessary to clean up a natural disaster within seventy-two (72) hours following the natural disaster;
      2. Present or file the license or registration certificate of another;
      3. Give false or forged evidence of any kind to the Contractors Licensing Board or any member thereof in obtaining a certificate of license or registration;
      4. Impersonate another; or
      5. Use an expired or revoked certificate of license or registration.
    2. A violation under subdivision (a)(1) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor, with each day of activity constituting a separate offense.
  2. The doing of any act or thing herein prohibited by any applicant, licensee, or registrant shall, in the discretion of the board, constitute sufficient grounds to refuse a license or registration to an applicant or to revoke the license of a licensee or the registration of a registrant.
  3. Regarding any violation of this chapter, the board shall have the power to issue subpoenas and bring before the board as a witness any person in the state and may require the witness to bring with him or her any book, writing, or other thing under his or her control which he or she is bound by law to produce in evidence.
  4. No action may be brought either at law or in equity to enforce any provision of any contract entered into in violation of this chapter. No action may be brought either at law or in equity for quantum meruit by any contractor in violation of this chapter.
      1. Any contractor who, after notice and hearing, is found by the board to have violated or used a contractor in violation of this chapter shall pay to the board a civil penalty of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than four hundred dollars ($400) per day for the activity. However, the penalty shall not exceed three percent (3%) of the total project being performed by the contractor.
        1. The penalty provided for in this chapter plus interest at ten percent (10%) per annum shall be paid to the board before the contractor can be issued a license to engage in the business of contracting in this state.
        2. In addition to the assessment of the penalty, the board, upon a finding of a violation of this chapter, may issue an order of abatement directing the contractor to cease all actions constituting a violation of this chapter.
    2. The board shall have the power to withhold approval for up to six (6) months of any application from any person who, before approval of the application, has been found in violation of this chapter.
    3. All hearings and appeals therefrom under this chapter shall be pursuant to the provisions of the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-201 et seq.
    4. No proceedings under this chapter may be commenced by the board after three (3) years from the date on which the act or omission which is the basis for the proceeding occurred.
    5. The board shall have the power to file suit in the Pulaski County Circuit Court to obtain a judgment for the amount of any penalty not paid within thirty (30) days of service on the contractor of the order assessing the penalty, unless the circuit court enters a stay pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
      1. The board shall have the power to file suit in the Pulaski County Circuit Court to enforce any order of abatement not complied with within fifteen (15) days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, of service on the contractor of the order of abatement.
      2. If the circuit court finds the order of abatement to have been properly issued, it may enforce the order by any means by which injunctions are ordinarily enforced.
      3. However, nothing shall be construed herein to diminish the contractor's right to appeal and obtain a stay pursuant to the procedures provided for in this chapter.

History. Acts 1965, No. 150, § 14; 1985, No. 180, § 4; A.S.A. 1947, § 71-713; Acts 1987, No. 495, § 3; 1989, No. 795, § 2; 1999, No. 43, § 1; 2007, No. 275, § 2; 2015, No. 1048, § 2; 2019, No. 805, §§ 3[4], 4[5].

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2019, No. 805, § 1, provided: “Legislative findings and intent.

“(a) The General Assembly finds that:

“(1) Arkansas is taking a leading role in the nationwide pursuit of reforms to the system of occupational licensing;

“(2) Arkansas became one (1) of eleven (11) states chosen to participate in the Occupational Licensing Policy Learning Consortium, an initiative funded by a grant from the United States Department of Labor and supported in partnership with the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, and the National Governors Association;

“(3) Governor Asa Hutchinson appointed seventeen (17) individuals to the Red Tape Reduction Working Group to review and address occupational licensing regulations that create unnecessary barriers to labor market entry;

“(4) The Red Tape Reduction Working Group issued a final report to the Governor in the fall of 2018 with five (5) recommendations for substantive legislative reform, which are to:

“(A) Establish an expedited procedure for occupational licensing entities to collectively submit administrative rules that are responsive to new legislation;

“(B) Extend Acts 2017, No. 781, to allow repeal of subsections of rules;

“(C) Establish provisions to allow certain agencies to consider occupational relevance with regard to criminal background issues;

“(D) Authorize occupational licensing entities to identify types of individuals or entities that may be issued temporary or provisional licenses; and

“(E) Establish a systematic process for review of:

“(i) New occupational licensure and occupational licensing entities; and

“(ii) Existing occupational licensure and occupational licensing entities;

“(5) Several occupational licenses are needlessly regulated and could be deregulated or de-licensed without causing detrimental harm to the citizens of the State of Arkansas and the economy of the this state;

“(6) Research has found that occupational licensing reduces access to jobs, inhibits geographic mobility, and raises the costs of services; “(b) It is the intent of the General Assembly to amend the laws concerning contractors and to allow registration of subcontractors and eliminate the subcontractor licensing requirement”.

Publisher's Notes. For text of section effective until July 1, 2020, see the bound volume.

Amendments. The 2007 amendment added (a)(1)(B) and made related changes; and in (a)(1)(A), inserted “or demolish” three times and inserted “demolition” and “demolished.”

The 2015 amendment substituted “fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)” for “twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)” in (a)(1)(A).

The 2019 amendment rewrote (a); and, in (b), substituted “applicant, licensee, or registrant” for “applicant or licensee”, inserted “or registration”, and added “or the registration of a registrant”.

Effective Dates. Acts 2019, No. 805, § 22[23]: July 1, 2020.

Case Notes

Construction.

Code provisions imposing penalties for noncompliance with licensing requirements, such as § 17-22-101 (now 17-25-101) and this section, must be strictly construed. Wilcox v. Safley, 298 Ark. 159, 766 S.W.2d 12 (1989).

Applicability.

The 1989 amendment to (d) was not applied retroactively to bar plaintiffs recovery under theory of quantum meruit where plaintiff, a subcontractor, had a vested right to file claim against general contractor under theory of quantum meruit and language of act did not unequivocally require retroactive application. Woodhaven Homes, Inc. v. Kennedy Sheet Metal Co., 304 Ark. 415, 803 S.W.2d 508 (1991).

Arkansas Contractor's Licensing Law did not bar appellee's counterclaim against a supplier for breach of contract, as appellee had a valid contractor's license, and it was not attempting to do any of the activities prohibited by subdivisions (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this section. Forever Green Ath. Fields, Inc. v. Lasiter Constr., Inc., 2011 Ark. App. 347, 384 S.W.3d 540 (2011).

Appellant excavating company fell under the definition of “contractor” as set forth in § 17-25-101(a)(1), because the work described in the contracts at issue — demolition, fill work, cut work, excavation — was encompassed by at least one of the categories of the statute listed as construction, erection, alteration, demolition, or repair. Thus, subsection (d) of this section was applicable and appellant was barred from enforcing the contracts because appellant did not have a valid Arkansas contractor's license when it entered into the contracts. J & J Excavating v. Doyne Constr. Co., 2012 Ark. App. 142, 391 S.W.3d 367 (2012).

Cost of Contract.

Unlicensed subcontractor could not bring a cause of action for breach of contract. Williams v. Joyner-Cranford-Burke Constr. Co., 285 Ark. 134, 685 S.W.2d 503 (1985).

Enforceability.

Former provision that no action prohibiting enforcement of any provision of a contract entered into in violation of licensing statute could be brought meant that no action could be brought by an unlicensed contractor; but even if the clause were applicable to both parties, the prohibition of the clause went solely to the remedy of the parties and not to the inherent validity of the contract itself. Ottinger v. Blackwell, 173 F. Supp. 817 (E.D. Ark. 1959) (decision under prior law).

The mere fact that former similar statute made it a misdemeanor to contract to construct without a license did not make a contract awarded to an unlicensed contractor illegal. Ottinger v. Blackwell, 173 F. Supp. 817 (E.D. Ark. 1959) (decision under prior law).

Fraudulent Inducement.

Subcontractor's claim against a contractor for fraudulent inducement was barred by subsection (d) of this section. Although that section did not specifically preclude fraudulent inducement claims, the subcontractor's claim was intrinsically founded on, and intertwined with, the facts surrounding the underlying contract. Meyer v. CDI Contrs., LLC, 102 Ark. App. 290, 284 S.W.3d 530 (2008).

Jurisdiction.

This section does not present a question of jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (d); a party may be provided an affirmative defense to such an action, but the jurisdiction of the court is not affected. Sisson v. Ragland, 294 Ark. 629, 745 S.W.2d 620 (1988) (decision under prior law).

Liens.

A contractor, within the meaning of § 17-22-101 (now 17-25-101), who was not licensed was not entitled to a mechanic's and materialman's lien. Davidson v. Smith, 258 Ark. 969, 530 S.W.2d 356 (1975).

Right to Sue.

Summary judgment dismissal of the contractor's suit was proper, because the contractor's construction of a natural-gas pipeline wherein space was leased fell squarely within the ambit of the statutory definition of contractor in § 17-25-101(a)(1), and subsection (d) of this section did not violate Ark. Const. Art. II, § 13, when the statute did not abrogate the right of all contractors to bring suit, but denied that right only to those contractors who did not possess a license; as designed to protect the public, the statute advanced the goal of providing an incentive for contractors to undergo the licensing process to ensure that the standards set by the licensing board were satisfied. Cent. Okla. Pipeline, Inc. v. Hawk Field Servs., LLC, 2012 Ark. 157, 400 S.W.3d 701 (2012).

Subcontractors.

The licensing requirement of this section is not limited to corporations which contract directly with the owner of the property to be improved but includes subcontractors for construction of a portion of a building or an integral part thereof. Bird v. Pan W. Corp., 261 Ark. 56, 546 S.W.2d 417 (1977).

Cited: Ark. Contractors Licensing Bd. v. F & F Concrete Prods., Inc., 297 Ark. 508, 763 S.W.2d 86 (1989); Meadow Lake Farms, Inc. v. Cooper, 360 Ark. 164, 200 S.W.3d 399 (2004).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Cent. Oklahoma Pipeline, Inc. v. Hawk Field Servs., LLC, 2012 Ark. 157, 400 S.W.3d 701.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cent. Oklahoma Pipeline, Inc. v. Hawk Field Servs., LLC, 2012 Ark. 157, 400 S.W.3d 701. · cites it 43× “As its claim for breach of contract, appellant asserted that Hawk terminated without cause its contract to construct the Phase One pipeline project on December 16, 2008, and that Hawk ordered it to cease all operations on January 31, 2009, for the stated reason that appellant…”
S. Constr., LLC v. Christopher Caleb Horton, 2020 Ark. App. 361, 609 S.W.3d 16. · cites it 10× “Offset Upon reconsideration of its original order offsetting the award in favor of Horton by the amount withheld by Horton under the contract, the circuit court found that the offset was not allowed under Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103 . Southern contends that the circuit court…”
Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc. v. Lasiter Constr., Inc., 384 S.W.3d 540 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “Ark.Code Ann. § 17-25-101(a)(l) (Repl. 2010).”
Cooper Realty Investments Inc. v. Arkansas Contractors Licensing Bd., 134 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103 (d) (Repl. 2001), Cooper did not make any further payments to Mr.”
Meadow Lake Farms, Inc. v. Cooper, 200 S.W.3d 399 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 7× “The Coopers then moved for summary judgment and claimed that Meadow Lake Farms was a contractor under Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-101 (a) (1) and was operating without a contractor’s license, as required by Ark.”
Quality Fixtures, Inc. v. Multi-Purpose Facilities Bd., 986 S.W.2d 865 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 6× “On March 27, 1998, Hussey approved and signed findings of fact and conclusions of law at a hearing before the Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board, in which it admitted violating Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103 (a)(1), (3), and (5) by submitting a bid without first obtaining a…”
Meyer v. CDI Contractors, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 530 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “Specifically, Meyer does not deny the fact that he was working on a project in excess of $20,000 at the time he applied for his contractor’s license, and he does not deny that he presented false information to the licensing board. As a result, it should be clear there are no…”
J & J Excavating v. Doyne Constr. Co., 391 S.W.3d 367 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 20× “|TOn November 17, 2010, the Pulaski County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to appellees Doyne Construction Company (Doyne) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, citing Arkansas Code Annotated section 17-25-103 (Repl.2010) as barring any action against them from appellant…”
HardHat Workforce Solutions, LLC v. OSS-JPOW Solar Power Servs., LLC, No. 4:24-cv-00598 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 20, 2026). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103 . The statute defines “contractor” as: any person, firm, partnership, copartnership, association, corporation, or other organization .”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103(a): 1 case
Cent. Oklahoma Pipeline, Inc. v. Hawk Field Servs., LLC, 2012 Ark. 157, 400 S.W.3d 701. “As its claim for breach of contract, appellant asserted that Hawk terminated without cause its contract to construct the Phase One pipeline project on December 16, 2008, and that Hawk ordered it to cease all operations on January 31, 2009, for the stated reason that appellant…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103(a)(2): 1 case
Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc. v. Lasiter Constr., Inc., 384 S.W.3d 540 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “Ark.Code Ann. § 17-25-101(a)(l) (Repl. 2010).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103(a)(l)(A): 2 cases
Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc. v. Lasiter Constr., Inc., 384 S.W.3d 540 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “Ark.Code Ann. § 17-25-101(a)(l) (Repl. 2010).”
J & J Excavating v. Doyne Constr. Co., 391 S.W.3d 367 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). “|TOn November 17, 2010, the Pulaski County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to appellees Doyne Construction Company (Doyne) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, citing Arkansas Code Annotated section 17-25-103 (Repl.2010) as barring any action against them from appellant…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103(d): 5 cases
Cent. Oklahoma Pipeline, Inc. v. Hawk Field Servs., LLC, 2012 Ark. 157, 400 S.W.3d 701. “As its claim for breach of contract, appellant asserted that Hawk terminated without cause its contract to construct the Phase One pipeline project on December 16, 2008, and that Hawk ordered it to cease all operations on January 31, 2009, for the stated reason that appellant…”
S. Constr., LLC v. Christopher Caleb Horton, 2020 Ark. App. 361, 609 S.W.3d 16. “Offset Upon reconsideration of its original order offsetting the award in favor of Horton by the amount withheld by Horton under the contract, the circuit court found that the offset was not allowed under Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103 . Southern contends that the circuit court…”
Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc. v. Lasiter Constr., Inc., 384 S.W.3d 540 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “Ark.Code Ann. § 17-25-101(a)(l) (Repl. 2010).”
Meyer v. CDI Contractors, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 530 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). “Specifically, Meyer does not deny the fact that he was working on a project in excess of $20,000 at the time he applied for his contractor’s license, and he does not deny that he presented false information to the licensing board. As a result, it should be clear there are no…”
J & J Excavating v. Doyne Constr. Co., 391 S.W.3d 367 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). “|TOn November 17, 2010, the Pulaski County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to appellees Doyne Construction Company (Doyne) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, citing Arkansas Code Annotated section 17-25-103 (Repl.2010) as barring any action against them from appellant…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103(e)(1): 1 case
Cooper Realty Investments Inc. v. Arkansas Contractors Licensing Bd., 134 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2003). “Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103 (d) (Repl. 2001), Cooper did not make any further payments to Mr.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103(e)(l): 1 case
Cooper Realty Investments Inc. v. Arkansas Contractors Licensing Bd., 134 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2003). “Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103 (d) (Repl. 2001), Cooper did not make any further payments to Mr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.