489.532
Contracts entered into by unlicensed contractors unenforceable.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
489.532 Contracts entered into by unlicensed contractors unenforceable.—
(1) As a matter of public policy, contracts entered into on or after October 1, 1990, by an unlicensed contractor shall be unenforceable in law or in equity by the unlicensed contractor.
(a) For purposes of this section, an individual is unlicensed if the individual does not have a license required by this part concerning the scope of the work to be performed under the contract. A business organization is unlicensed if the business organization does not have a primary or secondary qualifying agent in accordance with this part concerning the scope of the work to be performed under the contract. For purposes of this section, if a state license is not required for the scope of work to be performed under the contract, the individual performing that work is not considered unlicensed.
(b) For purposes of this section, an individual or business organization shall not be considered unlicensed for failing to have a business tax receipt issued under the authority of chapter 205.
(c) For purposes of this section, a contractor shall be considered unlicensed only if the contractor was unlicensed on the effective date of the original contract for the work, if stated therein, or, if not stated, the date the last party to the contract executed it, if stated therein. If the contract does not establish such a date, the contractor shall be considered unlicensed only if the contractor was unlicensed on the first date upon which the contractor provided labor, services, or materials under the contract.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, if a contract is rendered unenforceable under this section, no lien or bond claim shall exist in favor of the unlicensed contractor for any labor, services, or materials provided under the contract or any amendment thereto.
(3) This section shall not affect the rights of parties other than the unlicensed contractor to enforce contract, lien, or bond remedies. This section shall not affect the obligations of a surety that has provided a bond on behalf of an unlicensed contractor. It shall not be a defense to any claim on a bond or indemnity agreement that the principal or indemnitor is unlicensed for purposes of this section.
History.—s. 31, ch. 90-228; s. 12, ch. 91-201; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 499, ch. 97-103; s. 43, ch. 2000-372; s. 2, ch. 2003-257; s. 8, ch. 2006-154; s. 120, ch. 2007-5; s. 44, ch. 2009-195.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case: Master Tech Satellite, Inc. v. Mastec North America, Inc.
Master Tech Satellite, Inc. v. Mastec North America, Inc. (2010)
“Mastec moved for summary judgment based on section 489.532, Florida Statutes (2004), which makes an unlicensed contractor’s contracts unenforceable.”
Earth Trades, Inc. v. T & G Corp. (2013)
“at 1291-92 (making nearly identical changes to section 489.532). Moreover, the statute that governs liens generally reinforces the language of section 489.”
Austin Building Co. v. Rago, Ltd. (2011)
“In reversing, the Fourth District held that the business organization did not meet the statutory definition of an electrical contractor mandating licensure, and therefore, absent the requirement of a state license, could not be deemed unlicensed under section 489.532(l)(a),…”
MMII, INC. v. Silvester (2010)
“Section 489.532(l)(a) provides that “if a state license is not required for the scope of work to be performed under the contract, the individual performing that work is not considered unlicensed.”
Ramindesign, LLC v. Skarzynski (2024)
“at 9 (citing Fla. Stat. § 489.532 (1))). In denying Mr.”
— 489.532(l)(a) — 3 cases
Master Tech Satellite, Inc. v. Mastec North America, Inc. (2010)
“Mastec moved for summary judgment based on section 489.532, Florida Statutes (2004), which makes an unlicensed contractor’s contracts unenforceable.”
Austin Building Co. v. Rago, Ltd. (2011)
“In reversing, the Fourth District held that the business organization did not meet the statutory definition of an electrical contractor mandating licensure, and therefore, absent the requirement of a state license, could not be deemed unlicensed under section 489.532(l)(a),…”
MMII, INC. v. Silvester (2010)
“Section 489.532(l)(a) provides that “if a state license is not required for the scope of work to be performed under the contract, the individual performing that work is not considered unlicensed.”
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.