Gerry Potter's Store Fixtures, Inc. v. Cohen

Mason, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we are asked to decide whether the trial court erred in determining that the written contract between appellant, Gerry Potter’s Store Fixtures, Inc. (Potter) and appellee, Zev Cohen, t/a Naturally Good Yogurt Shop (Cohen) was illegal and unenforceable because Potter held himself out as an architect, used the designation of architect, and practiced architecture in violation of Article 43, section 515 of the Maryland Code (1957, 1980 Repl. Vol.) which provides: "It is hereby declared that in order to safeguard life, health, public safety and property and to promote the public welfare by requiring that only properly qualified persons shall hold themselves out as architects or be permitted to use the designation of'architect’ or be permitted to practice architecture in the State of Maryland, such persons shall be compelled to submit evidence that they are qualified to practice architecture and shall be registered as hereinafter provided.” Section 516 (b) defines the term "architect” as a person registered by the Maryland Architectural Registration Board for the practice of architecture, and section (e) defines the term "practice of architecture” as follows: "[A]ny service or creative work the performance of which requires architectural education, training and experience in such services as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, architectural design and preparation of related documents, coordination of services furnished by structural, ¹³³ civil, mechanical, electrical engineers and other consultants in connection with the construction of any building or integral part or parts thereof or any addition or alteration thereto.” We think it clear that section 515 proscribes any person not registered by the Maryland Architectural Registration Board for the practice of architecture in this State from holding himself out as an architect, using the designation of architect, or practicing architecture. The criminal sanction for engaging in the practice of architecture without a license is a fine not exceeding $3,000.00 or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both.

Section 526, Article 43. The statute does not speak to the validity or enforceability of a contract entered into by an unregistered person. However, in Snodgrass v. Immler, 232 Md. 416 (1963) this question was specifically answered. There Snodgrass held himself out as an architect and performed architectural services for Immler who knew he was unregistered.

In denying Snodgrass from recovering under the contract for architectural services, the Court of Appeals quoted the following from Goldsmith v. Mfrs.’ Liability I. Co., 132 Md. 283, 286 (1918): " '* * * a contract entered into by an unlicensed person engaged in a trade, business or profession, required to be licensed, and made in the course of such trade, business or profession, can not be enforced by such person, if it appears that the license required by the statute is, in whole or in part, for the protection of the public, and to prevent improper persons from engaging in such trade, business or profession.’ ” Id. at 421-422 . The Court also quoted with approval from the case of Kirschner v. Klavik, 186 A.2d 227 (1962) where the Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in ¹³⁴ a case denying a claim for architectural services by an unregistered architect, said: "'Generally, a contract made in violation of a Maryland statute designed for police or regulatory purposes is void and confers no rights upon the wrongdoer. Neither can the wrongdoer sue in quasi-contract for the value of his services or for the value of the benefits conferred upon the other party. This is true even where, as was shown here, the appellants entered into the contract with appellee knowing he was not duly licensed under the local statute as an architect.* * * ’ ” Id. at 423.

Authorities in most jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion. See Sweet, Legal Aspects of Architecture, Engineering and the Construction Process, section 31.07 (1970); see also Harry Berenter, Inc. v. Berman, 258 Md. 290 (1970) where the Court of Appeals denied enforcement of a mechanics lien for work done and materials furnished because the contractor was not licensed pursuant to the Maryland Home Improvement Law, Code (1957), Article 56, §§ 245-269. In this case, Potter, a licensed contractor in Prince George’s County, entered into a written agreement 1 with Cohen to convert a clothing store into a yogurt shop. Prior to signing the contract, Potter prepared certain lay-out drawings to clarify for Cohen the placement of fixtures, color scheme and type of materials, and to use in procuring the required building and other permits.

The contract price for the renovation was $10,000. Cohen paid Potter $7,600, but ¹³⁵ refused to pay the $2,400 balance. Potter then brought suit for the remainder of the contract price. 2 According to the testimony of Potter, he has known Cohen for approximately five years and had performed several jobs for him. Although he took architectural drawing, mechanical drawing and drafting in high school, he did not