Opinion ID: 891667
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Perez Was a Contractor Under the CILA and Was Required to Be Licensed

Text: {16} To determine whether the Court of Appeals erred when it applied a common law employee exception to the CILA licensing requirements, we must first determine if Perez was a contractor under the meaning of the statute. The CILA defines a contractor as any person who undertakes, offers to undertake ... by himself or through others, contracting. Contracting includes constructing, altering, repairing, installing or demolishing any ... building, stadium or other structure[.] Section 60-13-3(A)(2). Additionally, the CILA includes subcontractors and specialty contractors in its definition of contractors. Section 60-13-3(B). There is no dispute that Perez, by virtue of applying stucco to Valleses' house, was a contractor under the meaning of the CILA. Rather, the question for us to determine is whether Perez falls within an exclusion and so is exempted from the CILA's licensing requirement. {17} We next determine, therefore, whether Perez qualifies under one of the exceptions listed in Section 60-13-3(D). This subsection lists several exceptions to the definition of a contractor under the CILA. The most pertinent exception states that the definition of a contractor does not include an individual who works only for wages[.] Section 60-13-3(D)(13). {18} To determine the meaning of this exclusion, we first look to the plain meaning of the language used by the Legislature. In this case, we have the benefit of the CILA's statutory definition of wages. Section 60-13-2(I) defines wages as compensation paid to an individual by an employer from which taxes are required to be withheld by federal and state law[.] Id. Under the plain meaning rule, and by reading the exception in conjunction with the statutory definition of wages, we interpret the Section 60-13-3(D)(13) exception to exclude from the definition of a contractor individuals who work only for compensation from which taxes are required to be withheld by federal and state law. In this case, it is clear that Reule did not withhold Perez's taxes. Perez does not qualify under the wage-earner exception to the definition of a contractor under the CILA and was thus required to possess a contractor's license. Because the statutory language is clear and unambiguous and its application to the facts of this case is straightforward, we refrain from further statutory interpretation. See Hubble, 2009-NMSC-014, ¶ 10, 146 N.M. 70, 206 P.3d 579. We now discuss the Court of Appeals' decision not to address Section 60-13-30(A)'s preclusion following its determination through the common law control test that Perez was Reule's employee.