Green v. Johnson

Per Curiam This is an action by a home improvement contractor against owners. Certiorari was granted in order to consider the single question presented in the owners’ petition, which was: Can a contractor who is unlicensed at the time a contract for the performance of home improvement work is executed recover on that contract or on a Quantum Meruit [sic] basis simply by waiting until he is licensed before commencing work? Because we find that the record does not clearly present the issue raised in the petition for certiorari, we dismiss the petition as improvidently granted. This action was instituted in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City by Stephen A. Johnson (the Plaintiff or Stephen) against James Green and Marjorie Green.

The Statement of Claim alleged a contract under ⁷³² which the Plaintiff was to do repairs to 328 North Mount Street. Plaintiff claimed $4,064.49, representing both a portion of the original contract price and compensation for extra work. In the course of trial, the Plaintiff testified that the amount he was claiming was $3,564.49. The original, written contract was introduced in evidence.

That contract is on a preprinted proposal form, headed "S.A. Johnson, Interior and Exterior Painting Contractors,” followed by an address and telephone number. Next to that printed name there was written in longhand "Lie No #11887.” The writing then set out in longhand a description of the work proposed to be done by Plaintiff. This proposal bears the date July 1, 1980 and was admittedly signed by Stephen. After negotiating the fixed price for the work to $6,485, James Green accepted the proposal on July 1, 1980 by signing the contract and paying $1,000 in advance.

The District Court found that the work started July 5, 1980. Through September of 1980, the Defendants made additional payments in the aggregate amount of $2,500. Proof showed that portions of the work called for in the written contract were never performed or were defectively performed by the Plaintiff. There was also testimony by Stephen that his claim for extras included additional labor in the amount of $1,875.

The Defendants, in support of a defense of illegality, called . a witness from the Maryland Home Improvement Commission (the Commission) for the purpose of showing that Stephen was not a licensed home improvement contractor on July 1, 1980. This defense rested both on the Maryland Home Improvement Act, Md. Code (1957, 1979 Repl. Vol., 1982 Cum. Supp.), Art. 56, §§ 245 through 269A (the Act) and on the decision in Harry Berenter, Inc. v. Berman, 258 Md. 290 , 265 A.2d 759 (1970).

That witness produced a certificate, executed under the seal of the Commission by its executive director, which, under the heading "License Information,” read as to Stephen: "1980-1981 license #11887, Issued July 2, 1980.” The unanimous testimony was that license #11887 was a license ⁷³³ issued to E. Johnson & Sons, a home improvement contracting business owned by Stephen’s father, Ernest Johnson. The Commission representative testified that Stephen was "on the application.” The following colloquy ensued: THE COURT: Well was [Stephen] licensed to work under that number if his name was on the application? [WITNESS]: Only if he was part of the company. THE COURT: And the work was started July the 5th. So when the work was started the license was valid. [WITNESS]: For E. Johnson and Sons, that’s correct.

THE COURT: And Steve A. Johnson was a part of that on the application? [WITNESS]: That’s what — that’s what the document