In this blog post, presented by SunRay Construction Solutions and J. Don Overton, Founder and Principal, The Overton Firm, we'll explore the relatively confidential yet immensely significant aspects of contractor licensing laws in the state of Arkansas and explore why understanding these laws is essential for anyone involved in the construction industry.
The Significance of Contractor Licensing Laws
The discussion around contractor licensing laws in Arkansas frequently surfaces within the construction industry, as professionals grapple with roles like construction managers and advisors. At the core of this debate lies a fundamental question: What does it mean to be a contractor under the laws of Arkansas?
According to Arkansas law, chapter § 17-25-101, a contractor encompasses a wide range of entities, including individuals, firms, partnerships, corporations, or other organizations. What characterizes a contractor is their engagement in construction-related activities, such as bidding for projects, undertaking construction or demolition, and managing various building and infrastructure endeavors, whether on public or private property.
This definition carries profound implications, especially when it comes to independent contractors, superintendents, or supervisors hired to oversee construction projects. When these professionals don't fall under the contractor category and lack the requisite license, it can lead to disputes and unpaid fees.
A Flooring Company and Licensing Woes
Consider a practical example: A flooring company that both sells flooring materials and provides labor services for a commercial project. It seems like a lucrative business model—until disputes over licensing emerge, particularly concerning the total project cost. The flooring company and the installer may find themselves at odds, with legal consequences looming, especially if the licensing requirements have not been met.
The Crucial Role of Labor and Materials
It's crucial to grasp that both labor and materials play an integral role in defining a contract in Arkansas. This principle applies not only to disputes between contractors and clients but also to conflicts within the construction industry itself.
Understanding Residential Contractor Licensing
Arkansas Law, subchapter, §17-25-502 deals with residential contracts, defining two types of licenses: home improvement contractors and residential building contractors. The distinction between these licenses is vital. A home improvement contractor can undertake renovations and remodeling projects for single-family residences but is restricted from starting a project from scratch. In contrast, a residential building contractor enjoys a broader scope, capable of initiating construction from the ground up.
Understanding these distinctions is critical, as the right license hinges on the type of construction activities you intend to engage in. Neglecting the necessity of the appropriate license can result in significant consequences.
The No License, No Sue Rule
Under §17-25-515, if you're working on a project that requires either a residential or commercial license and you proceed without it, you're in violation of the law. The consequences are stark: contractors who perform work in violation of these licensing requirements cannot bring legal action to enforce their contracts. This means you can't file a lien or sue for non-payment if you're not properly licensed. Adhering to licensing requirements is not just a legal nicety; it's a fundamental part of protecting your rights in the construction industry.
What if you do not have the required commercial license?
According to, § 17-25-103. Penalties - Enforcement
(a) (1) It is a violation of this chapter for any contractor to knowingly do any of the following:
(A) (i) For a fixed price, commission, fee, or wage attempt to or submit a bid or bids to construct or demolish or contract to construct or demolish, or undertake to construct or demolish, or assume charge in a supervisory capacity or otherwise, or manage the construction, erection, alteration, demolition, or repair of, or has constructed, erected, altered, demolished, or repaired, under his or her or its direction, any building, apartment, condominium, highway, sewer, utility, grading, or any other improvement or structure, when the cost of the work to be done, or done, in the State of Arkansas by the contractor, including, but not limited to, labor and materials, is fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more, without first having procured a license or registration with the proper classification to engage in the business of contracting in this state.
A Legal Perspective: The Arkansas Appeals Court Case
An Arkansas Appeals Court case serves as a poignant illustration of the ramifications of working without a license. In this case, a contractor had presented false information to obtain a license, albeit unintentionally. Nevertheless, the court ruled that even inadvertent misrepresentation leads to the penalties outlined in the statute. The language of the statute is unequivocal: it doesn't require an applicant's intent to give false information. You can read the full case below.
Meyer v. CDI CONTRACTORS, LLC, 284 SW 3d 530 - Ark: Court of Appeals 2008
In this case, Meyer does not dispute that he worked on a project over $20,000 when applying for his contractor's license, providing false information to the licensing board. This means there are no factual disputes left, and his claims against CDI are legally blocked by Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103 (2005).
Regarding his fraudulent-inducement claim, Meyer argues that the contractor's licensing laws do not explicitly prevent contractors from suing for fraud, even if it relates to an unenforceable contract. However, since his fraud claim is closely tied to the contract's circumstances, and the relief he seeks is essentially the benefit of his bargain, the court held that his fraudulent-inducement claim is barred by Arkansas Code Annotated section 17-25-103(d).
Meyer also asserts that he didn't intend to provide false information for his contractor's license application, making it a jury question to prevent summary judgment. Nonetheless, the statute doesn't necessitate intent for its terms to apply, and the court disagreed with Meyer's argument.
The Constitutionality of Contractor Licensing Laws
In 2012, the case of Central Oklahoma Pipeline v. Hartfield Services brought the constitutionality of Arkansas's contractor licensing laws to the forefront. The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the statute, emphasizing its role in protecting the public. By encouraging contractors to undergo the proper licensing process and adhere to industry standards, the law serves a legitimate government purpose. It aims to safeguard the interests of the public by ensuring that construction work is executed by qualified professionals. You can read the full case below.
CENTRAL OKLAHOMA PIPELINE v. HAWK FIELD, 400 SW 3d 701 - Ark: Supreme Court 2012
The appellant argues that Arkansas Code Section 17-25-103(d) violates their constitutional right to a remedy for injuries or wrongs, as it prevents contractors from suing for unpaid work. However, the court found that the statute is clear in its intent to prohibit unlicensed contractors from suing, even though it can lead to harsh outcomes due to its penal nature.
The key question is whether the statute is reasonably connected to a valid government objective. In this case, it serves the purpose of safeguarding the public by encouraging contractors to get licensed, ensuring compliance with licensing board standards.
The appellant has not convincingly demonstrated that the statute is unconstitutional, so the court affirms this point, upholding the statute's presumed constitutionality.
The Broader Context of Arkansas Laws
Understanding the legal landscape in Arkansas is pivotal. Most laws in the state prioritize protecting children, mothers, families, and small businesses. The contractor licensing law aligns with this approach, as it plays a vital role in safeguarding the public from unlicensed and potentially subpar construction practices.
What is the Application of Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-103(d) and Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-515?
Arkansas Code Ann. § 17-25-103(d) is a penal statute, and it should be interpreted in a strict manner in favor of the party facing potential penalties. This means that if there is any ambiguity in the language of the statute, the benefit of the doubt should go to the party against whom the statute is being applied. This principle is established in legal cases such as Meadow Lake Farms, Inc. v. Cooper (2004) and Meyer v. CDI Contractors, LLC (2008), which emphasize the strict construction of penal statutes and the resolution of any doubts in favor of the party subject to potential penalties under the statute.
The Connection Between Licensing and Liens
You might be wondering about the connection between licensing and liens. Well, without a valid license, you can't file a lien. Even if you believe your contract is valid and the work was performed as agreed, the absence of the required license can nullify your legal rights. Attempting to file a lien on a void contract can have serious legal repercussions, and it's a path you should avoid at all costs.
Understanding Arkansas's contractor licensing laws is not just essential—it's a legal obligation for anyone involved in the construction industry. Ignoring these laws can lead to significant legal complications and challenges, potentially jeopardizing your livelihood. Therefore, it's highly advisable to consult with legal experts who are well-versed in construction law to help you navigate the complexities of these regulations. Remember, in the construction industry, knowledge of the law is as essential as the tools in your toolbox.
Ready to streamline your legal and compliance needs? Discover the efficiency, accuracy, and convenience of SunRay. Click here to explore our services and transform your business!