{ "id": 8522085, "name": "OTIS L. DAYE v. WILBERT O. ROBERTS and ROBBIE E. ROBERTS", "name_abbreviation": "Daye v. Roberts", "decision_date": "1988-03-15", "docket_number": "No. 8714SC842", "first_page": "344", "last_page": "347", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "89 N.C. App. 344" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "342 S.E. 2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4702306, 4701541, 4701099, 4703283, 4702623 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0379-04", "/nc/316/0379-03", "/nc/316/0379-05", "/nc/316/0379-01", "/nc/316/0379-02" ] }, { "cite": "336 S.E. 2d 108", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 N.C. App. 783", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525386 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/77/0783-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S.E. 2d 273", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563328 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0119-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 353, "char_count": 5370, "ocr_confidence": 0.827, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.205503486882826 }, "sha256": "c559c406046e7becf7b0314dc2f972038ddd6391c470f1db4f18dda966ad0753", "simhash": "1:432db7600935b526", "word_count": 861 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:00.818604+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Eagles and COZORT concur." ], "parties": [ "OTIS L. DAYE v. WILBERT O. ROBERTS and ROBBIE E. ROBERTS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nPlaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment. We do not agree.\nG.S. 87-1 states in pertinent part that:\n[a]ny person or firm or corporation who for a fixed price, commission, fee or wage, undertakes to bid upon or to construct or who undertakes to superintend or manage, on his own behalf or for any person, firm or corporation that is not licensed as a general contractor pursuant to this Article, the construction of any building, highway, public utilities, grading or any improvement or structure where the cost of the undertaking is thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) or more, shall be deemed to be a \u201cgeneral contractor\u201d engaged in the business of general contracting in the State of North Carolina.\nThe term \u201cimprovement\u201d in G.S. 87-1 connotes the performance of construction work and presupposes the prior existence of some structure to be improved. Vogel v. Reed Supply Co., 277 N.C. 119, 177 S.E. 2d 273 (1970).\nPlaintiff was contracted to restore defendants\u2019 home for an amount exceeding $30,000.00. The promissory note given by defendants to plaintiff specifically stated that a certain sum was to be paid upon completion of xk of the construction. There is no doubt that plaintiffs work on defendants\u2019 home constituted an \u201cimprovement\u201d under G.S. 87-1. Thus, plaintiff was a \u201cgeneral contractor\u201d as defined by the statute and was required to be licensed by the North Carolina Licensing Board for General Contractors.\nIn North Carolina, an unlicensed general contractor may not recover on a contract or in quantum meruit. Reliable Properties, Inc. v. McAllister, 77 N.C. App. 783, 336 S.E. 2d 108 (1985), disc, rev. denied, 316 N.C. 379, 342 S.E. 2d 897 (1986). Since plaintiff was an unlicensed general contractor, he is not entitled to a recovery from defendants.\nPlaintiff also argues that he should be allowed to enforce the promissory note made by defendants based on G.S. 25-3-307(2). G.S. 25-3-307(2) states:\nWhen signatures are admitted or established, production of the instrument entitles a holder to recover on it unless the defendant establishes a defense.\nIn the case sub judice, defendants have established a defense to plaintiffs recovery on the note. G.S. 87-13 provides that:\nAny person, firm, or corporation not being duly authorized who shall contract for or bid upon the construction of any of the projects or works enumerated in G.S. 87-1, without having first complied with the provisions hereof, or who shall attempt to practice general contracting in the State, . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall for each such offense of which he is convicted be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment of three months, or both ... in the discretion of the court.\nSince plaintiff was not licensed and performed general contracting, his actions were illegal. Accordingly, the defense of illegality bars plaintiffs recovery on the note.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Eagles and COZORT concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Moore & Van Allen, by David E. Fox and Alesia Rae Alphin, for plaintiff appellant.", "Randall, Yaeger, Jervis & Stout, by Robert B. Jervis, for defendant appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "OTIS L. DAYE v. WILBERT O. ROBERTS and ROBBIE E. ROBERTS\nNo. 8714SC842\n(Filed 15 March 1988)\nContracts \u00a7 6.1\u2014 improvements to house exceeding $30,000 \u2014 unlicensed general contractor \u2014 no recovery\nPlaintiff was not entitled to recover for improvements made to defendants\u2019 home where the amount contracted for exceeded $30,000, and plaintiff was not a licensed contractor as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 87-1. Furthermore, the defense of illegality bars plaintiffs recovery on a promissory note given by defendants for the improvements. N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 25-3-307(2) and 87-13.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Brannon, Judge. Judgment entered 27 April 1987 in Superior Court, DURHAM County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 February 1988.\nIn October 1985, defendants contacted plaintiff and requested him to make repairs to their home which had been damaged by fire. Plaintiff agreed to perform the work for the amount of $32,900.00, and defendants gave him a promissory note \u201cfor work to be done to restore [their] home.\u201d Under the terms of the note, defendants agreed to: (1) pay plaintiff $10,966.66 upon \u201cthe completion of V3 of construction for labor and supplies to be agreed by both parties,\u201d (2) pay plaintiff $10,966.66 upon \u201cthe completion of 2h of the work,\u201d and (3) pay plaintiff $10,966.66 \u201cat the completion of the work and release given by [defendants].\u201d\nIn his complaint, plaintiff stated that he completed the repairs to defendants\u2019 home on approximately 17 February 1986 and had been paid $20,000.00 by defendants. Plaintiff also stated that during the course of the work, he and defendants agreed to a modification of their agreement whereby he was to perform additional work and receive an additional $1,100.00. Defendants, however, failed to make any further payment, and plaintiff filed a lien against defendants\u2019 property. Plaintiff then instituted this action to enforce the lien in order to recover $14,000.00 owed to him by defendants.\nDefendants filed an answer and later filed an amended answer and counterclaim. Defendants then moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs claims and Judge Brannon granted their motion. From the judgment of the trial court, plaintiff appeals.\nMoore & Van Allen, by David E. Fox and Alesia Rae Alphin, for plaintiff appellant.\nRandall, Yaeger, Jervis & Stout, by Robert B. Jervis, for defendant appellees." }, "file_name": "0344-01", "first_page_order": 372, "last_page_order": 375 }