Court Opinion

ID: 9707644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:17:25.482332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:36.153693
License: Public Domain

Cynar, P.J.
(dissenting). I must respectfully dissent from the majority in this case. The residential builders act was enacted to protect homeowners from incompetent, inexperienced, and fly-by-night contractors. Alexander v Neal, 364 Mich 485, 487; 110 NW2d 797 (1961). See also Kirkendall v Heckinger, 105 Mich App 621; 307 NW2d 699 (1981), lv den 413 Mich 859 (1982). It was not enacted to *382afford a substantial windfall to a buyer who seeks ayoidahce to pay an unwary builder by claiming the benefit, but unexpectedly using the residential builders act. ás a shield, declaring in effect "I gotcha”, The wisdom of the legislature cannot be questioned. The residential builders act has and Continues to protect the public against the unscrupulous, builder or contractor. However a buyer should not be a beneficiary of a windfall under a guise not. intended by the legislation. In my opinion Bernard F Hoste, Inc v Kortz, 117 Mich App 448; 324 NW2d 46 (1982), was erroneously decided.
In Michigan Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc v Dufty Road Properties, 90 Mich App 732; 282 NW2d 809 (1979) , vacated on other grounds, 409 Mich 887 (1980) , this Court adopted the test of substantial Compliance and stated:
"In so holding, we adopt the California test of substantial compliance.
"Although plaintiff thus failed literally to conform to the commands of section 7031 of the Business and Professions Code, the courts of this state have not insisted upon such strict observance if it would transform the statute into an 'unwarranted shield for the avoidance of a just obligation.’ ” Michigan Roofing, supra, pp 735-736, quoting Latipac, Inc v Superior Court of Marin County, 64 Cal 2d 278, 281; 49 Cal Rptr 676; 411 P2d 564 (1966).
In my opinion, under the facts herein, there was substantial compliance. I would affirm.