California Appeals Court Confirms Conviction of Contractor

A California Appeals Court recently affirmed the lower court's conviction of California contractor Toby James Coleman. Mr. Coleman was convicted of five misdemeanor counts of contracting without a valid contractor's license in violation of California's Business and Professions Code section 7028, subdivision (a).

Mr. Coleman was sentenced to 90 days in jail for each of the five counts to be followed by a three-year probationary period. Additionally, he was fined $25,000.

This case highlights the importance of making certain that you are properly licensed and operating in accordance with your states Business and Consumer Protection laws.

You can download a copy of the appellate court's decision by clicking on the image below.  Should you have any questions about this decision or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

EPA Enforcing Lead Paint Laws - Maximum Penalty is $37,500.00 per violation per day! Contact us to find out if you need to be certified.

Most recently, on May 16, 2011, the EPA announced that a Rockland, Maine renovator is facing penalties related to alleged violations, which occurred in October 2010.  As per the EPA’s investigation, the contractor, who had personally completed the required RRP Rule eight-hour training class, failed to:  1) obtain firm certification from the EPA, 2) post warning signs, 3) contain the work area, 4) contain waste from the renovation activities, 5) properly train his co-workers, 6) prohibit the use of high-speed paint removal machines without HEPA exhaust control, and 7) establish and maintain records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the RRP Rule.  Remember, the maximum penalty for the alleged violations is up to $37,500.00 per violation per day!  Do you know how he was discovered?  The EPA received a tip, from someone across the street from the renovation, who took a video and posted it on the internet!  The EPA promises to follow through on tips, such as this example, to identify if violations have jeopardized public health.

State seeks to bar contractor from work in Oregon

Jason Robert Gamble is facing accusations of misrepresentation

BY KAREN MCCOWAN

The Register-Guard

Published: (Tuesday, Jul 5, 2011 04:25AM)Today

The state Department of Justice is seeking a court order permanently barring an unlicensed contractor from working in construction in the state.

A complaint made public last week in Lane County Circuit Court accuses Jason Robert Gamble of misrepresenting himself as a licensed contractor for seven years. He did work in Lane and Deschutes counties, the lawsuit says.

The suit also seeks a fine of up to $25,000 for each of Gamble’s violations of state contracting law.

It claims that Gamble advertised his services as J.G. Construction, an unregistered business name, and misled customers to believe that he had posted a bond to cover any damages resulting from his work.

The Register-Guard was unable to reach Gamble for comment. A telephone number listed for him in Oregon Circuit Court records has been disconnected.

Between December 2007 and March 2010, Gamble posted 43 Internet ads in which he described himself as an experienced contractor who could “handle all phases of construction and remodeling” and who offered seniors a 10 percent discount, the suit alleges.

In at least one of the ads, Gamble said “I build new homes” and “additions to your existing home.”

The state alleges that Gamble contracted with a Marcola woman in September 2008, agreeing to repair her roof for $348. She hired him based on an Internet ad in which Gamble described himself as an experienced contractor. He told her the repaired roof was “guaranteed not to leak,” according to court documents.

The woman called him back when the roof still leaked a month later, and he persuaded her to pay an additional $1,374 for him to remove a skylight and replace a section of the roof, the complaint alleges.

“The roof continued to leak,” the suit said, but the woman then had “a very difficult time” reaching Gamble and he never returned to make repairs.

The suit charges that Gamble also misrepresented himself as a licensed contractor earlier that year when he performed supervisory and siding construction on a home in Bend.

Appellate Division Rules Against Finch Landscaping, LLC

The New Jersey Appellate .Division, in Murnane v. Finch Landscaping, LLC, decided on July 1, 2011, that a home improvement contractor is subject to the Consumer Fraud Act even when the homeowner acts as the general contractor.

The issue presented by this appeal was whether a homeowner who contracts directly with a building contractor to perform a home improvement, without engaging the services of a general contractor, may assert a claim against that contractor under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20, and the Contractor's Registration Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-136 to -152. The Appellate Division concluded that such a contract is a home improvement contract subject to the CFA, the Contractor's Registration Act and the Home Improvement Practices regulations adopted by the Division of Consumer Affairs to implement these statutory provisions. N.J.A.C. 13:45A-16.1 to -16.2. Therefore, the Court reversed the order of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's CFA claim and remanded the case for a new trial.  

View the Appellate Division's decision HERE.

Please feel free to contact us to learn about what the Court's decision means for you and how to avoid violations of the Consumer Fraud Act.