Opinion ID: 1307705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of Burry's Action by Summary Judgment

Text: First, Burry asserts this issue was not argued below, therefore, not before the trial judge. However, it is clear from the record before us that all three motions were addressed during the hearing. Burry merely failed to present any counter affidavits or arguments. Second, Burry argues that the action should not have been dismissed by summary judgment. Section 40-59-130 provides in part: Any residential builder or residential specialty contractor who undertakes or attempts to undertake the business of residential building or residential specialty contracting without first having procured a valid license... is guilty of a misdemeanor.... A residential builder who does not have a license or residential specialty contractor who is not certified or registered as required may not bring any action either at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of any contract for residential building or residential specialty contracting which he entered into in violation of this chapter. [2] Burry argues his use of licensed employees constituted substantial compliance with this provision. The party responding to a summary judgment motion may not rest on the allegation in the pleadings, but rather he must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Rule 56(e) SCRCP. Since Burry submitted no counter affidavits, the facts before the Court indicate that one hourly employee worked on the house for two days, but did not use his license. The mandate of this statutory provision is clear and unambiguous. Duckworth v. Cameron , 270 S.C. 647, 244 S.E. (2d) 217 (1978) Even if this Court were to adopt the substantial compliance doctrine, these facts fail to raise even a colorable argument for substantial compliance. Cf., Spry v. Miller , 25 Wash. App. 741, 610 P. (2d) 931 (1980) (held unlicensed contractor substantially complied with similar statutory provision by hiring an independent licensed contractor who performed the work with no supervision or control by the unlicensed contractor). To allow recovery under these facts would fail to provide any protection to the homeowners and, therefore, undermine the purpose of the statute. Watson v. Harmon , 280 S.C. 214, 312 S.E. (2d) 8 (Ct. App. 1984). Thus, we AFFIRM the granting of summary judgment. HARWELL, C.J., and CHANDLER, FINNEY and MOORE, J.J., concur.