Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 1: Did your contractor lie about being a licensed contractor?

Did your contractor lie about being a licensed contractor?

Defendant appeals his conviction of unlicensed residential builder.  The trial court sentenced to 18 months’ probation, and $6,300 in restitution.

Appeal arises from two brothers retaining defendant to perform repairs on a home in the City of Detroit.  While interviewing contractors, the victim met defendant at the home which required extensive repairs. The victim testified that defendant showed him a portfolio of photographs of his work, and defendant told him that he had been a licensed builder since he was 20 years old.  According to the victim, it absolutely mattered that defendant stated that he was a licensed builder because payment was supposed to be up front.

The victims paid defendant in advance. However, shortly after payment had been tendered, work ceased on the home.  There was also evidence presented at trial that defendant demanded more money for the work he was doing on the home. Eventually an agreement was reached whereby defendant received $6,300 for his work on the house. After the defendant failed to complete the repairs after being paid, the victims contacted the police who discovered that none of the individuals working on the home were licensed contractors.

At trial defendant was convicted as indicated above.  At sentencing, the trial court inquired of defendant what the total amount of money he received. Defendant stated that he had received $6,300. That was the amount of restitution the trial court ordered. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to pay $6,300 in restitution because there is no causal connection between his conduct and the harm suffered by his victims.

Crime victims have a right to restitution under the 1963 Michigan Constitution.  The trial court, relying on the testimony and verdict of the jury, ordered defendant to pay $6,300 in restitution because that was the amount he received in payment for a house repair project that he was not licensed to perform. The trial court also noted that in addition to receipt of the money, testimony also revealed that prior to abandoning the project, defendant left the majority of the work for which he had been contracted unfinished.

The crux of defendant’s argument is that he is entitled to the $6,300 because he did $6,300 worth of work on the home. Defendant’s argument lacks merit because he fails to include the fact that testimony revealed that none of the people hired to perform work on the home would have been hired had it been known that they were not licensed contractors. Defendant’s argument also seeks to negate testimony by the victim that defendant held himself out as a licensed contractor. In fact, the victim testified that defendant told him he was a licensed contractor. Therefore, it is fairly obvious that but for defendant’s assertions and those of the others involved in this case, defendant would not have been hired had he truthfully explained that he was not a licensed contractor. Hence, contrary to defendant’s assertions, there is a causal connection between defendant’s conduct as an unlicensed builder and the payment he received to perform a building project that he was not licensed to perform.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered defendant to pay restitution.

Are you dealing with a breach of contract case?  Seek the advice and guidance of an experienced attorney.  At Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys provide effective, ethical representation on behalf of property owners, builders, contractors and subcontractors across southeast Michigan.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000