Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 APRIL 2012

Variations In An Entity’s Name Will Not Bar A Contractor’s Suit

The California Court of Appeal recently issued another opinion on contractor licensing that has important implications to contractors and owners in California’s construction industry.

United StatesReal Estate and Construction

The California Court of Appeal recently issued another opinion on contractor licensing that has important implications to contractors and owners in California's construction industry. In Montgomery Sansome LP v. Rezai, Nos. A130272, A130694, 2012 WL 1021079 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2012), the First Appellate District held that where a contractor's name on a construction contract does not identically match the name under which it holds its contractor's license, Business and Professions Code § 7031 ("Section 7031") does not bar recovery by the contractor so long as "the entity that contracted with [the owner] is the same entity that held a license."

Montgomery Sansome is important in that it further illuminates the bounds of Section 7031's bar on suits by unlicensed contractors and disgorgement claims against unlicensed contractors. Specifically, the case holds that minor variations between the name a contractor's license is issued under and the name used by the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from