licensing requirement in California

1996Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d 141, 147-151 [ 308 P.2d 713 ], the Supreme Court set forth rules for determining whether a licensing bar applies.

1996Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d 141, 147-151 [ 308 P.2d 713 ], the Supreme Court set forth rules for determining whether a licensing bar applies.

1985To allow defendant to prevail on a technicality would be to allow section 7031 to be used as a “ ‘shield for the avoidance of a just obligation. ’ ” (Latipac, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 281 ; Gatti, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 690 .) “The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to contracting with incompetent or untrustworthy contractors.” (Davis Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 156, 158 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; see also Rushing v. Powell (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 597, 604 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; Weeks, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at p. 525 .) In this case, “the

1985To allow defendant to prevail on a technicality would be to allow section 7031 to be used as a “ ‘shield for the avoidance of a just obligation. ’ ” (Latipac, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 281 ; Gatti, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 690 .) “The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to contracting with incompetent or untrustworthy contractors.” (Davis Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 156, 158 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; see also Rushing v. Powell (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 597, 604 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; Weeks, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at p. 525 .) In this case, “the

1985To allow defendant to prevail on a technicality would be to allow section 7031 to be used as a “ ‘shield for the avoidance of a just obligation. ’ ” (Latipac, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 281 ; Gatti, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 690 .) “The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to contracting with incompetent or untrustworthy contractors.” (Davis Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 156, 158 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; see also Rushing v. Powell (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 597, 604 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; Weeks, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at p. 525 .) In this case, “the

1985To allow defendant to prevail on a technicality would be to allow section 7031 to be used as a “ ‘shield for the avoidance of a just obligation. ’ ” (Latipac, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 281 ; Gatti, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 690 .) “The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to contracting with incompetent or untrustworthy contractors.” (Davis Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 156, 158 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; see also Rushing v. Powell (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 597, 604 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; Weeks, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at p. 525 .) In this case, “the

2023Substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that appellant did not comply with the licensing requirement Business and Professions Code section 7031, subdivision (c) states: “A security interest taken to secure any payment for the performance of any act or contract for which a license is required by this chapter is unenforceable if the person performing the act or contract was not a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance of the act or contract.” This allows the court to determine whether there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements “if it is show

2009The CSLL provides that contractors [6] performing construction work must be licensed unless exempt. (§§ 7026 et seq., 7040 et seq.) "The licensing requirements provide minimal assurance that all persons offering such services in California have the requisite skill and character, understand applicable local laws and codes, and know the rudiments of administering a contracting business. [Citations.]" ( Hydrotech Systems, Ltd. v. Oasis Waterpark (1991) 52 Cal.3d 988, 995 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 517 , 803 P.2d 370 ].) The licensing requirement and the penalties for violating that requirement are designed

2010The Statutory Scheme Governing Licensing of Real Estate Brokers Under California’s Real Estate Law (§ 10000 et seq.), “[i]t is unlawful for any person to engage in the business, act in the capacity of, advertise or assume to act as a real estate broker or a real estate salesman within this state without first obtaining a real estate license . . . .” (§ 10130.) “The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to dealing with incompetent or untrustworthy real estate practitioners.” (Schantz v. Ellsworth (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 289, 292-293 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 7

2010The Statutory Scheme Governing Licensing of Real Estate Brokers Under California’s Real Estate Law (§ 10000 et seq.), “[i]t is unlawful for any person to engage in the business, act in the capacity of, advertise or assume to act as a real estate broker or a real estate salesman within this state without first obtaining a real estate license . . . .” (§ 10130.) “The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to dealing with incompetent or untrustworthy real estate practitioners.” (Schantz v. Ellsworth (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 289, 292-293 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 7

2005Normally, a court will not impose additional penalties for noncompliance with the licensing requirement. [Citations.]” ( Vitek, supra, 34 Cal.App.3d 586, 592 , italics added.) The court reasoned that where, as here, the contract’s object is not inherently wrongful or contrary to sound public policy, it will be deemed void “only if it falls within the area which the Legislature intended as part of deterrence necessary to protect the public interest.” (Id., at p. 593, fn. omitted.) The court conceded that the CSLL’s purpose is “to protect the administration of the licensing law as well as to pro

2005Normally, a court will not impose additional penalties for noncompliance with the licensing requirement. [Citations.]” ( Vitek, supra, 34 Cal.App.3d 586, 592 , italics added.) The court reasoned that where, as here, the contract’s object is not inherently wrongful or contrary to sound public policy, it will be deemed void “only if it falls within the area which the Legislature intended as part of deterrence necessary to protect the public interest.” (Id., at p. 593, fn. omitted.) The court conceded that the CSLL’s purpose is “to protect the administration of the licensing law as well as to pro

1996It is settled that “section 7031 bars a suit for breach of contract as well as for the collection of compensation for performance of any act.” (Currie v. Stolowitz (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 810, 813 [ 338 P.2d 208 ].) “Properly construed, the term [compensation] embraces damages suffered by a contractor lacking the requisite license under the law for breach of a contractual obligation where either (1) the making of the contract or (2) the performance during which the breach occurs comes within the licensing requirement.” (General Ins.

1996It is settled that “section 7031 bars a suit for breach of contract as well as for the collection of compensation for performance of any act.” (Currie v. Stolowitz (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 810, 813 [ 338 P.2d 208 ].) “Properly construed, the term [compensation] embraces damages suffered by a contractor lacking the requisite license under the law for breach of a contractual obligation where either (1) the making of the contract or (2) the performance during which the breach occurs comes within the licensing requirement.” (General Ins.

2015(See 2 Miller & Starr, supra, Cal. Real Estate, § 5:1, p. 5-9.) " 'The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to dealing with incompetent or untrustworthy real estate practitioners.' " (GreenLake Capital, LLC v. Bingo Investments, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 731, 736 .) " '[W]hen the evidence shows that the plaintiff in substance seeks to enforce an illegal contract or recover compensation for an illegal act, the court has both the power and duty to ascertain the true facts in order that it may not unwittingly lend its assistance to the consummati

2013We disagree with Business Advisors's contention that the purpose of California's real estate licensing scheme would not be furthered by barring its recovery in this case because, according to Business Advisors, "There is no showing here that the rule barring the payment of an 19 illegal commission was intended to assist an escrow company that paid the wrong person." Numerous California cases have explained that, " 'The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to dealing with incompetent or untrustworthy real estate practitioners.' [Citation.]" (Gre

2015To bring itself within this exception, a contractor must show at an evidentiary hearing that, despite being unlicensed at some time during performance, the contractor “(1) had been duly licensed . . . prior to . . . performance . . . , (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, (3) did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not duly licensed when performance of the act or contract commenced, and (4) acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate his or her license upon learning it was invalid.” (§ 7031, subd. (e); Pacific Caisson, supra, 198 Ca

2015To bring itself within this exception, a contractor must show at an evidentiary hearing that, despite being unlicensed at some time during performance, the contractor “(1) had been duly licensed . . . prior to . . . performance . . . , (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, (3) did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not duly licensed when performance of the act or contract commenced, and (4) acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate his or her license upon learning it was invalid.” (§ 7031, subd. (e); Pacific Caisson, supra, 198 Ca

2015To bring itself within this exception, a contractor must show at an evidentiary hearing that, despite being unlicensed at some time during performance, the contractor “(1) had been duly licensed . . . prior to . . . performance . . . , (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, (3) did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not duly licensed when performance of the act or contract commenced, and (4) acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate his or her license upon learning it was invalid.” (§ 7031, subd. (e); Pacific Caisson, supra, 198 Ca

2015To bring itself within this exception, a contractor must show at an evidentiary hearing that, despite being unlicensed at some time during performance, the contractor “(1) had been duly licensed . . . prior to . . . performance . . . , (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, (3) did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not duly licensed when performance of the act or contract commenced, and (4) acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate his or her license upon learning it was invalid.” (§ 7031, subd. (e); Pacific Caisson, supra, 198 Ca

1987(Reid v. Overland Machined Products (1961) 55 Cal.2d 203, 208 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 819 , 359 P.2d 251 ]; Smith v. Bach (1920) 183 Cal. 259, 262-263 [ 191 P. 14 ]; Gruzen v. Henry (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 515, 518 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 573 ]; Severance v. Knight-Counihan Co., supra, 29 Cal.2d 561, 568 .) In the context of licensing statutes, however, a contrary rule has been said to apply, namely, that when penalties are provided by statute, the courts “will not impose additional penalties for noncompliance with the licensing requirement.” (Vitek, Inc. v. Alvarado Ice Palace, Inc. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 586, 592

1987(Reid v. Overland Machined Products (1961) 55 Cal.2d 203, 208 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 819 , 359 P.2d 251 ]; Smith v. Bach (1920) 183 Cal. 259, 262-263 [ 191 P. 14 ]; Gruzen v. Henry (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 515, 518 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 573 ]; Severance v. Knight-Counihan Co., supra, 29 Cal.2d 561, 568 .) In the context of licensing statutes, however, a contrary rule has been said to apply, namely, that when penalties are provided by statute, the courts “will not impose additional penalties for noncompliance with the licensing requirement.” (Vitek, Inc. v. Alvarado Ice Palace, Inc. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 586, 592

1985To allow defendant to prevail on a technicality would be to allow section 7031 to be used as a “ ‘shield for the avoidance of a just obligation. ’ ” (Latipac, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 281 ; Gatti, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 690 .) “The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to contracting with incompetent or untrustworthy contractors.” (Davis Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 156, 158 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; see also Rushing v. Powell (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 597, 604 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; Weeks, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at p. 525 .) In this case, “the

1985To allow defendant to prevail on a technicality would be to allow section 7031 to be used as a “ ‘shield for the avoidance of a just obligation. ’ ” (Latipac, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 281 ; Gatti, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 690 .) “The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to contracting with incompetent or untrustworthy contractors.” (Davis Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 156, 158 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; see also Rushing v. Powell (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 597, 604 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 110 ]; Weeks, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at p. 525 .) In this case, “the

2020(Bartkus v. Illinois (1959) 359 U.S. 121, 124 (Bartkus).) By analogy, defendant argues that the federal prosecution for the licensing violation was in fact a “sham” used to detain defendant while the state investigated Pamela’s murder.

2015(See 2 Miller & Starr, supra, Cal. Real Estate, § 5:1, p. 5-9.) " 'The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to dealing with incompetent or untrustworthy real estate practitioners.' " (GreenLake Capital, LLC v. Bingo Investments, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 731, 736 .) " '[W]hen the evidence shows that the plaintiff in substance seeks to enforce an illegal contract or recover compensation for an illegal act, the court has both the power and duty to ascertain the true facts in order that it may not unwittingly lend its assistance to the consummati

2015(See 2 Miller & Starr, supra, Cal. Real Estate, § 5:1, p. 5-9.) " 'The purpose of the licensing requirement is to protect the public from the perils incident to dealing with incompetent or untrustworthy real estate practitioners.' " (GreenLake Capital, LLC v. Bingo Investments, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 731, 736 .) " '[W]hen the evidence shows that the plaintiff in substance seeks to enforce an illegal contract or recover compensation for an illegal act, the court has both the power and duty to ascertain the true facts in order that it may not unwittingly lend its assistance to the consummati