Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §43-41-17, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 786, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 1179, § 3/SB 124; Ga. L. 2006, p. 272, § 2/HB 1542; Ga. L. 2007, p. 569, § 9/SB 115; Ga. L. 2008, p. 324, § 43/SB 455.)
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2007, in subsection (f), a period was inserted at the end of the first sentence, a comma was inserted following "2008" in the third sentence, and "predominantly" was substituted for "predominately" in the last sentence.
- For annual survey of law on administrative law, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2010). For annual survey on construction law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 63 (2017).
- When it is undisputed that the client has received the benefit for which the client has paid and the unlicensed general contractor has received no benefit, nothing in the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17 suggests that the General Assembly intended either: (a) that the unlicensed general contractor must bear all of the costs of all benefits received by the client, in essence subjecting the contractor to punitive damages; or (b) that the client is entitled to the windfall that such an outcome would entail. Ussery v. Goodrich Restoration, Inc., 341 Ga. App. 390, 800 S.E.2d 606 (2017).
- Judgment was properly entered in favor of the plaintiff on the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff for return of funds the defendant paid to the plaintiff, which was premised on the proposition that the defendant's agreement with the plaintiff was illegal as the plaintiff violated O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17 by acting as a general contractor without a license, because the entire amount the plaintiff received out of the defendant's insurance proceeds was paid to the subcontractors who undisputedly performed work on the defendant's home, and the plaintiff realized no profit in connection with the project; and the defendant did not identify any damage to the defendant's home that was caused by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's subcontractors. Ussery v. Goodrich Restoration, Inc., 341 Ga. App. 390, 800 S.E.2d 606 (2017).
- Because a construction contractor and the contractor's officers did not have Georgia contractor's licenses when the construction contract was executed and when the work was performed pursuant to the contract, under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b), the construction contract was not enforceable by the contractor in law or in equity against the homeowner. Baja Props., LLC v. Mattera, 345 Ga. App. 101, 812 S.E.2d 358 (2018).
- Superior court erred in granting contractors a preliminary injunction restraining the Georgia State Licensing Board for Residential and General Contractors and a county from enforcing a licensing law, O.C.G.A. § 43-41-1 et seq., because: (1) harm did not flow to the contractors from any failure on the part of the county to comply with notice of the licensing law pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 43-41-14(b) or to provide other specific notice of the licensing law going into effect since the lack of notice did not result in the contractors' consequent failure to comply with the law and thereby obtain an exemption under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(a); (2) the grant of the preliminary injunction operated oppressively on the rights of the county and the Board and also on the rights of the citizens of the state since the injunction effectively enjoined, without an apparent valid basis, the operation of a licensing law; and (3) the refusal to grant the requested injunction would not work irreparable injury to the contractors or leave the contractors without remedy in the event the contractors ultimately prevailed in the contractors' challenge to the licensing law. Since § 43-41-14(b) became effective on May 29, 2007, approximately a month before the July 1, 2007 deadline for filing an application for examination exemption, and under that general statute the contractors were charged with notice of the licensing law including the time-limited provision allowing examination exemption. Ga. State Licensing Bd. for Residential & Gen. Contrs. v. Allen, 286 Ga. 811, 692 S.E.2d 343 (2010).
- Homeowner was not entitled to summary judgment on the ground that O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b) applied to the parties' contracts because there was a dispute over whether the parties entered into the oral agreement before or after § 43-41-17 became effective. Wagner v. Robinson, 329 Ga. App. 169, 764 S.E.2d 189 (2014).
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-03-25
Citation: 692 S.E.2d 343, 286 Ga. 811, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 1005, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 278
Snippet: contracting within the state. OCGA §§ 43-41-9 (a),1 43-41-17 (a).2 For an eighteen-month period *813beginning