Court Opinion

ID: 9548955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:11:03.803023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:40.221660
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The action is barred by AS 08.18.151, because it is undisputed that Jones was not “registered” when the contract was made. The registration requirement of AS 08.18.-011 is easily understood, and compliance a simple matter. Likewise, “[t]he statutorily imposed penalty for noncompliance is unambiguous.” State ex rel. Smith v. Tyonek Timber, Inc., 680 P.2d 1148, 1155 (Alaska 1984).
I see no reason not to enforce these provisions in the case at bar.1 Thus, I would affirm the judgment of the superior court.

. In State ex rel. Smith v. Tyonek Timber, Inc., 680 P.2d 1148 (Alaska 1984) we held that an unlicensed contractor’s action was barred, stating:
Smith cannot rely on his mistaken belief that his [insurance] broker would timely process his application for registration as a licensed and bonded contractor to support his claim of substantial compliance_ The burden of compliance under AS 08.18.011-171 is solely the responsibility of the unlicensed contractor.
680 P.2d at 1155 (citation omitted). Here, Jones’ excuse is similar, although it relates to his effort to renew his contractor's certificate, rather than an original application. The burden, in either case, should be the contractor’s.