Court Opinion

ID: 9569181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:11:13.2383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:13.484279
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, J.,
dissenting.
I cannot join the majority’s decision to judicially enact a statutory amendment.
In plain language, Code § 54-142(D) prohibited an unlicensed corporate contractor from maintaining an action at law or a suit in equity for work performed, unless the corporation was “without actual knowledge of this section.” As the majority states, “Because Mr. Woolard had obtained a personal license the preceding year, he could be charged with knowledge that Virginia required the licensure of contractors, and the court could properly impute that knowledge to the corporation.” That determination, based on the trial court’s finding of fact, should have ended the appeal and the trial court’s judgment should have been affirmed.
Instead, the majority now amends the statute to provide that, even though the violator had “actual knowledge” of the section, the violation is excused if it was “inadvertent.” I find no justification in the words of the statute for this amplification of the statutory language. A person either possesses actual knowledge or he does not. Whether one with actual knowledge acted “inadvertently” is irrelevant, according to the statute. Yet, the majority bases its reversal of the trial court on that new ingredient, added today by judicial pronouncement. I would leave the amendment of statutes to the General Assembly.
Hence, I believe the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
CARRICO, C.J., joins in dissent.