O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 48-13-37 (2019)

Preclusion of right to bring action for payment on contract by contractor in violation of article

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No contractor who fails to register with the commissioner as required by this article or who fails to comply with any provision of this article shall be entitled to maintain an action to recover payment for performance on the contract in the courts of this state.

History

Ga. L. 1961, p. 480, § 6; Code 1933,

§ 91A-6107, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Compliance with O.C.G.A. § 48-13-30 et seq. is a condition precedent to filing suit on the contract in Georgia; however, the bar imposed by O.C.G.A. § 48-13-37 is a matter that is properly raised as a plea in abatement and not a proper subject for summary judgment. Rehco Corp. v. California Pizza

Kitchen, Inc., 192 Ga. App. 92, 383 S.E.2d 643, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 867 (1989). Failure to register contract. - Payment of accrued state and local taxes was not “substantial compliance” with Nonresident Contractors Act, O.C.G.A. § 48-13-30 et seq., absent registration of construction contract with commissioner.

SPECIFIC, BUSINESS, & OCCUPATION TAXES

Fuller Enters. v. Hardin Constr. Group, Inc., 206 Ga. App. 8, 424 S.E.2d 311, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 1554 (1992). Defense that contractor has not complied with section need not be specially pled. - When the contractor has not complied with the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 48-13-37, the defense of the contractor’s lack of capacity to maintain the suit may be asserted at trial without being specially pled under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9. Gorrell v. Fowler, 248 Ga. 801, 286 S.E.2d 13, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 1085 (1982). O.C.G.A. § 48-13-37 is a forum-closing sanction that closes the courts of Georgia to the offender until such time, if ever, when the offender can substantially comply with the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 48-13-30 et seq. Adams v. PPT, Inc., 191 Ga. App. 729, 382 S.E.2d 732, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 781 (1989). Dismissal, rather than summary judgment, is appropriate sanction. - Once the trial court determined that the plaintiff was required to comply with O.C.G.A. § 48-13-30 et seq. and had not done so, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the appropriate action was to enter an involuntary dismissal, rather than a summary judgment. Adams v. PPT, Inc., 191 Ga. App. 729, 382 S.E.2d 732, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 781 (1989). Dismissal without prejudice not adjudication on merits. - Dismissal under O.C.G.A. § 48-13-37 is one of the few involuntary dismissals which does not act as an adjudication on the merits. Taco Bell Corp. v. Calson Corp., 190 Ga. App. 481, 379 S.E.2d 6, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 275 (1989); Clover Cable of Ohio, Inc. v. Heywood, 260 Ga. 341, 392 S.E.2d 855,

1990 Ga. LEXIS 266 (1990); Fuller Enters. v. Hardin Constr. Group, Inc., 206 Ga. App. 8, 424 S.E.2d 311, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 1554 (1992). Dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. - Despite the involuntary nature of a dismissal based on O.C.G.A. § 48-13-37, such a dismissal is in the nature of a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and not on the merits. Rehco Corp. v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., 192 Ga. App. 92, 383 S.E.2d 643, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 867 (1989). Dismissal of action not required. - Failure of business to comply with Georgia Nonresident Contractors Act, O.C.G.A. § 48-13-30 et seq., did not require dismissal of action against a corporation; the fraud claims at issue arose out of a proposed merger agreement and did not depend upon a contract to perform work in Georgia or upon the recovery of payment for performance under the contract. Infrasource, Inc. v. Hahn Yalena Corp., 272 Ga. App. 703, 613 S.E.2d 144, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 287 (2005), cert. denied, No. S05C1304, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 605 (Ga. Sept. 19, 2005). Recovery of payment for performance on subcontract. - By its action against the city under former O.C.G.A. § 36-82-102, the appellee sought to recover payment due it for work it had performed under its subcontract; therefore, the action sought to recover payment for performance on the contract within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 48-13-37 and the action was therefore precluded. Mayor of City of Savannah v. Norman J. Bass Constr. Co., 264 Ga. 16, 441 S.E.2d 63, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 131 (1994).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1987–1999 · leading case: Transp. Ins. v. El Chico Restaurants, Inc., 524 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Transp. Ins. v. El Chico Restaurants, Inc., 524 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 24× “Any ambiguity in the language and history of subsection (a), however, is resolved by reviewing the remainder of OCGA § 14-2-1502 and a similar statute, OCGA § 48-13-37, which contains identical language.”
Taco Bell Corp. v. Calson Corp., 379 S.E.2d 6 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 28× “The trial judge denied the motion to modify, holding that the language of OCGA § 48-13-37 was controlling on its face; that it provided a forum-closing sanction only and did not render the underlying contract void and unenforceable.”
Mayor of Savannah v. Norman J. Bass Constr. Co., 441 S.E.2d 63 (Ga. 1994). · cites it 16× “” OCGA § 48-13-37. 2 In response to the motion, Bass Construction contended that § 48-13-37 only prohibited actions to recover on a contract and was thus inapplicable to this action under § 36-82-102 to recover for the City’s failure to obtain a proper bond, and that it was not…”
Clover Cable of Ohio, Inc. v. Heywood, 392 S.E.2d 855 (Ga. 1990). · cites it 18× “309, § 2 at 738 (codified at OCGA § 48-13-37), in that plaintiff did not comply with the registration and bonding requirements of the Act and granted summary judgment to defendants.”
George C. Carroll Constr. Co. v. Langford Constr. Co., 355 S.E.2d 756 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 12× “OCGA § 48-13-37. Partial summary judgment was granted and counts one and two were dismissed.”
Rehco Corp. v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., 383 S.E.2d 643 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 10× “” OCGA § 48-13-37. It is uncontroverted that appellant is a nonresident corporation, that it did not register or file a nonresident tax bond, and that the total compensation contemplated by the contract in issue here is greater than $10,000.”
Hardin Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Fuller Enter., Inc., 462 S.E.2d 130 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 48-13-37. 2 OCGA §§ 9-9-13 and 9-9-14 set forth the standard of review of the trial court where a party seeks to vacate or modify an arbitration award.”
Health Horizons, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 521 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 48-13-37, like OCGA § 14-2-1502 (a), provides that: “[n]o contractor who fails to register with the commissioner as required by this article or who fails to comply with any provision of this article shall be entitled to maintain an action to recover payment for…”
Fuller Enter., Inc. v. Hardin Constr. Grp., Inc., 424 S.E.2d 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “See OCGA § 48-13-37. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Moseman Constr. Co., 393 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. 1990). · cites it 2× “Moseman did not comply with the NCA prior to beginning work on the interchange, and for that reason the DOT claims its action must be dismissed under the NCA’s forum-closing provision, OCGA § 48-13-37, which provides: No contractor who fails to register with the commissioner as…”
Lenox Hotel Co. v. Charter Builders, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 1558 (N.D. Ga. 1989). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 48-13-37. Plaintiff maintains that defendants have not complied with “this article” referred to in the above statute by not complying with O.”
Davis Constructors v. Dartco Mfg., Inc., 668 F. Supp. 380 (D. Del. 1987). “” O.C.G.A. § 48-13-37. The scarcity of case law interpreting this statute apparently made Davis unsure about its ability to maintain a lawsuit in Georgia, even after it attempted to cure its non-compliance by filing the bond late, when the work on the facility was almost…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.