Stalker Bros. v. Alcoa Concrete Masonry, Inc.

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the Maryland Home Improvement Law does not render unenforceable a contract between a home-improvement general contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor. The court also adopted the Court of Special Appeals' interpretation of the statute permitting recovery where the subcontractor was licensed when payment was due. The judgment affirming reinstatement of the subcontractor's complaint was affirmed.

Holdings

1. The Maryland Home Improvement Law does not render unenforceable a contract between a home-improvement general contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor when the subcontractor seeks payment from the general contractor rather than from a homeowner.
2. Section 8-315 does not require a subcontractor to have been licensed at the time of contracting or performance in order to receive payment; the statute focuses on whether the person to be paid is licensed when payment is due, subject to the statute's provisions concerning loss of a license.
3. Snodgrass v. Immler is not inconsistent with allowing Alcoa's claim because Snodgrass involved an arrangement designed to circumvent the licensing requirement and effectively placed an unlicensed architect in a direct relationship with the owner.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an unlicensed home-improvement subcontractor may enforce a payment claim against a general contractor under Maryland law.
2. Whether the Court of Special Appeals erred by declining to follow prior Maryland precedent concerning unenforceable contracts made by unlicensed entities.
3. Whether Maryland Business Regulation Article § 8-315 permits recovery when the subcontractor was licensed when payment was due, even if it was unlicensed when the work was performed.

Disposition

affirmed