Barisone/Kanarek Legal Filings (Public Record)

[YankeeDuchess]

@Knights Mom

He knew.

OK. Interesting.

So it sounds like you’re saying that if the law in NJ is similar, IF RG were unlicensed and even if he made no false claims that he was licensed, so that MB hired him knowing he was unlicensed, that MB can just decline to pay on the grounds that RG was unlicensed?

Further, IF RG was unlicensed and attempted to use the courts to get payment, they would award MB treble damages?

Well, that would pretty much explain why RG is not suing. (If he’s not suing.)

Isn’t there a legal doctrine of “unclean hands”, which has to do with a situation in which a wrong was committed by Party A against Party B, but the damages awarded Party B are mitigated if Party B also stepped out of line in some way?

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

There are probably additional restrictions on installing gas lines and electrical work regardless of cost. My highly regulated state considers electrical work and installing gas lines done by unlicensed and uninsured contractors a threat to safety, even if done for free by a friend.

I actually don’t know all the gory details because if there is anything I can’t do myself, I hire a licensed person. Unlicensed contractors may give you a bid that looks cheap, but they end up being more expensive in the long run, when the shoddy wiring causes a fire or something.

Oh yeah I didn’t think about other restrictions. It makes sense though. Honestly the wiring causing a fire is why I didn’t wire my Dad’s cabin. I couldn’t live with myself if I made a mistake that caused that.

[Denali6298]

@Knights Mom

Note: then LK claimed violations existed. I wonder if that included RGs work.

I honestly think the violations were bull. People of MB’s caliber typically have clients that also care about living conditions for anyone be it a WS or in LK’s case because they have strict policies for clients about how people are treated. When the conditions are deplorable one hears about it quick when it’s a BNT/R. At least in Dressage anyway.

Knowing of the big trainers and riders in NJ due to who I worked for, I never heard a bad thing about MB in the WS context. I never heard anything about him period. That’s strictly anecdotal. I heard plenty about others in the area. I attended enough NJ farrier barn parties to get the gossip on a lot of people! :lol:

[FitzE]

ETA: I was responding to the bit about both sides being liable, but the thread moved on significantly as I slooooooowly typed.

This actually isn’t true. There are cases in which the law recognizes that one party is better placed to know the true information about the situation and thus is the party punished.

I am 100% transactional, so I am out of my depth in these types of discussions. But, it is not at all inconsistent with legal principles that only the unlicensed contractor would be punished. I can easily articulate an argument for that approach: (i) the contractor is best placed to know if s/he is truly licensed (i.e., homeowner could be victim of fraud); (ii) only the contractor has a legal obligation to be licensed and to keep that license in good order; and (iii) punishment of only the unlicensed contractor (and treble damages esp) creates a huge incentive for contractors to comply with the laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdiction. The state wants to make it REALLY not worth it for them to do work unlicensed by creating such an awful downside that they won’t try it. Losing all your materials costs plus paying 3x damages and attorney fees would certainly incentivize me not to do work I was not licensed to do.

Holding the client liable for lack of license requirements makes no sense as they are not well placed to truly know if the contractor is licensed and shouldn’t have the burden of compliance with regulations that are relevant only to the contractor, not to the client.

A side issue I can see is the practical hurdles to proving the homeowner knew contractor was unlicensed as that information would not likely be recorded in any instrument or otherwise that could be used a proof. Even if it was, it would be an odd bit of evidence to produce in court: “See, I secretly recorded myself telling client I was unlicensed so…oh, wait, never mind.”

I am not representing that this is true for NJ. Someone up thread did note it was true for her state. I’m simply stating that there are situations in which the liability is one sided though two parties were involved. I can easily see a compelling state interest behind unilateral liability and treble damages: get and stay licensed if you want to do contracting work in this state.

[2tempe]

@eggbutt

Simple. Say “I don’t care” instead.

How about “I dont give a s**t”?

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

ETA: I was responding to the bit about both sides being liable, but the thread moved on significantly as I slooooooowly typed.

This actually isn’t true. There are cases in which the law recognizes that one party is better placed to know the true information about the situation and thus is the party punished.

I am 100% transactional, so I am out of my depth in these types of discussions. But, it is not at all inconsistent with legal principles that only the unlicensed contractor would be punished. I can easily articulate an argument for that approach: (i) the contractor is best placed to know if s/he is truly licensed (i.e., homeowner could be victim of fraud); (ii) only the contractor has a legal obligation to be licensed and to keep that license in good order; and (iii) punishment of only the unlicensed contractor (and treble damages esp) creates a huge incentive for contractors to comply with the laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdiction. The state wants to make it REALLY not worth it for them to do work unlicensed by creating such an awful downside that they won’t try it. Losing all your materials costs plus paying 3x damages and attorney fees would certainly incentivize me not to do work I was not licensed to do.

Holding the client liable for lack of license requirements makes no sense as they are not well placed to truly know if the contractor is licensed and shouldn’t have the burden of compliance with regulations that are relevant only to the contractor, not to the client.

A side issue I can see is the practical hurdles to proving the homeowner knew contractor was unlicensed as that information would not likely be recorded in any instrument or otherwise that could be used a proof. Even if it was, it would be an odd bit of evidence to produce in court: “See, I secretly recorded myself telling client I was unlicensed so…oh, wait, never mind.”

I am not representing that this is true for NJ. Someone up thread did note it was true for her state. I’m simply stating that there are situations in which the liability is one sided though two parties were involved. I can easily see a compelling state interest behind unilateral liability and treble damages: get and stay licensed if you want to do contracting work in this state.

As I recall, you are Canadian, so not a lawyer licensed in any US state?

ETA I did not say that “both sides were liable”. My point was that I found it odd that a homeowner could be awarded treble damages for work done by an unlicensed contractor if 1. the contractor never falsely represented that he was licensed and especially, 2. if the homeowner knew full well that the contractor was unlicensed.

With respect to who is in a better position to know RG was unlicensed, it seems unlikely that MB found his name from a glossy website suggesting but not claiming he was a licensed contractor, or even a contractor at all. MB hired the boyfriend of his current client, who happened to be living in the unit. Unless RG falsely claimed that he was a licensed contractor (seems unlikely that he did), most people would NOT assume that the boyfriend of the current client just happened to be a licensed contractor.

Statistically, the vast majority of boyfriends of clients are not licensed contractors.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

As I recall, you are Canadian, so not a lawyer licensed in any US state?

But laws are very similar between both countries.

@FitzE thank you for that explanation. It’s hard sometimes. I don’t know about Canada but here in the states if your neighbor can help we jump on that. At least in the country.

[FitzE]

You recall incorrectly on both counts. In addition I was talking about general legal principles in common law jurisdictions. It is super annoying that you responded to none of my thoughtful reply. Your only response was to try to cancel me based on your erroneous assumptions. Poor show and quite rude.

[FitzE]

@Denali6298

But laws are very similar between both countries.

@FitzE thank you for that explanation. It’s hard sometimes. I don’t know about Canada but here in the states if your neighbor can help we jump on that. At least in the country.

Thanks, Denali. I’m glad someone was receptive. What a crap response above yours! I hope some of the other lawyers with more experience chime in on those thoughts.

[MorganSercu]

@YankeeDuchess

As I recall, you are Canadian, so not a lawyer licensed in any US state?

Based on that line of logic, shouldn’t you be challenging Knight’s Mom for not being licensed to practice in New Jersey?

Not that I am suggesting you should. KM & FitzE, among other attorneys here, have been generous with their time, knowledge and patience. Thanks to all real lawyers on this thread.

[eggbutt]

@FitzE

ETA: I was responding to the bit about both sides being liable, but the thread moved on significantly as I slooooooowly typed.

This actually isn’t true. There are cases in which the law recognizes that one party is better placed to know the true information about the situation and thus is the party punished.

I am 100% transactional, so I am out of my depth in these types of discussions. But, it is not at all inconsistent with legal principles that only the unlicensed contractor would be punished. I can easily articulate an argument for that approach: (i) the contractor is best placed to know if s/he is truly licensed (i.e., homeowner could be victim of fraud); (ii) only the contractor has a legal obligation to be licensed and to keep that license in good order; and (iii) punishment of only the unlicensed contractor (and treble damages esp) creates a huge incentive for contractors to comply with the laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdiction. The state wants to make it REALLY not worth it for them to do work unlicensed by creating such an awful downside that they won’t try it. Losing all your materials costs plus paying 3x damages and attorney fees would certainly incentivize me not to do work I was not licensed to do.

Holding the client liable for lack of license requirements makes no sense as they are not well placed to truly know if the contractor is licensed and shouldn’t have the burden of compliance with regulations that are relevant only to the contractor, not to the client.

A side issue I can see is the practical hurdles to proving the homeowner knew contractor was unlicensed as that information would not likely be recorded in any instrument or otherwise that could be used a proof. Even if it was, it would be an odd bit of evidence to produce in court: “See, I secretly recorded myself telling client I was unlicensed so…oh, wait, never mind.”

I am not representing that this is true for NJ. Someone up thread did note it was true for her state. I’m simply stating that there are situations in which the liability is one sided though two parties were involved. I can easily see a compelling state interest behind unilateral liability and treble damages: get and stay licensed if you want to do contracting work in this state.

Great response. Thank you for your expertise and time to explain to all.

[eggbutt]

@FitzE

ETA: I was responding to the bit about both sides being liable, but the thread moved on significantly as I slooooooowly typed.

This actually isn’t true. There are cases in which the law recognizes that one party is better placed to know the true information about the situation and thus is the party punished.

I am 100% transactional, so I am out of my depth in these types of discussions. But, it is not at all inconsistent with legal principles that only the unlicensed contractor would be punished. I can easily articulate an argument for that approach: (i) the contractor is best placed to know if s/he is truly licensed (i.e., homeowner could be victim of fraud); (ii) only the contractor has a legal obligation to be licensed and to keep that license in good order; and (iii) punishment of only the unlicensed contractor (and treble damages esp) creates a huge incentive for contractors to comply with the laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdiction. The state wants to make it REALLY not worth it for them to do work unlicensed by creating such an awful downside that they won’t try it. Losing all your materials costs plus paying 3x damages and attorney fees would certainly incentivize me not to do work I was not licensed to do.

Holding the client liable for lack of license requirements makes no sense as they are not well placed to truly know if the contractor is licensed and shouldn’t have the burden of compliance with regulations that are relevant only to the contractor, not to the client.

A side issue I can see is the practical hurdles to proving the homeowner knew contractor was unlicensed as that information would not likely be recorded in any instrument or otherwise that could be used a proof. Even if it was, it would be an odd bit of evidence to produce in court: “See, I secretly recorded myself telling client I was unlicensed so…oh, wait, never mind.”

I am not representing that this is true for NJ. Someone up thread did note it was true for her state. I’m simply stating that there are situations in which the liability is one sided though two parties were involved. I can easily see a compelling state interest behind unilateral liability and treble damages: get and stay licensed if you want to do contracting work in this state.

Great response. Thank you for your time and expertise in this explanation for us.

[LilRanger]

FitzE, I am also a slow typist!

But I see your point about creating a unilateral incentive. And it makes sense from a regulation side (safe houses!) and an enforcement side too.

I would think the risk to the homeowner is significant, in that if the work is sub-par, they have no recourse (most licensing requires a bond/insurance) and the home value may suffer. That’s the penalty/risk to the owner, right?

[Denali6298]

@FitzE

Thanks, Denali. I’m glad someone was receptive. What a crap response above yours! I hope some of the other lawyers with more experience chime in on those thoughts.

Of course! I think this area of law is hard because so much depends on the state and case law of that state. I know, at least in the Safe Sport threads lawyers were challenging my assertions that an appellate attorney worth their salt wouldn’t touch the case. Those attorneys had also argued in front of the SCOTUS. So what do any of s know really?

I appreciate any SOUND argument.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

You recall incorrectly on both counts. In addition I was talking about general legal principles in common law jurisdictions. It is super annoying that you responded to none of my thoughtful reply. Your only response was to try to cancel me based on your erroneous assumptions. Poor show and quite rude.

     It was a genuine question. I thought I remembered from a SafeSport thread that you said you were Canadian, or perhaps not American. I apologize. I’m not dumping on people who are Canadian, but I think nationality is relevant when assessing posts discussing details of the law. 

       I did understand that you were explaining what the law might be, based on common law principles. But the question addressed to you by Knights Mom, I thought, referred to what the actual law was in NJ or in some specific state. 

        I did respond to your discussion regarding whether one could or would have to prove that MB knew RG was unlicensed. I think most courts would presume that when a property owner hires the boyfriend of a client who happens to be living in the unit, the property owner had no basis for thinking the boyfriend was a licensed contractor.

[YankeeDuchess]

@MorganSercu

Based on that line of logic, shouldn’t you be challenging Knight’s Mom for not being licensed to practice in New Jersey?

Not that I am suggesting you should. KM & FitzE, among other attorneys here, have been generous with their time, knowledge and patience. Thanks to all real lawyers on this thread.

If FitzE were a Canadian, as I incorrectly recalled, I’m not saying she shouldn't post, but just disclose her nationality. I recalled incorrectly, and have apologized. 

  Apparently she was not discussing the actual law in any specific jurisdiction, but rather discussing what types of laws would be consistent with legal principles in common law jurisdictions. As such, it is interesting, and I don’t disagree with it, but I was more interested in learning what the actual law was, in some US state, if not NJ.

[tryintogethere]

RG has a background in construction (can’t say how good or bad he is), so not just someone that is just handy. It is plausible that MB did think that RG was licensed.

[LilRanger]

@YankeeDuchess

I think most courts would presume that when a property owner hires the boyfriend of a client who happens to be living in the unit, the property owner had no basis for thinking the boyfriend was a licensed contractor.

Courts don’t presume these types of facts at all, that’s the job of the attorneys, to tell the Court what the facts are.

This is where a lot of people get frustrated at the court system, because facts not in evidence are not assumed. And a lot of the time there are facts in evidence that just plain don’t get accounted as important by most, but end up being super duper key to the case.

I mean, you say most people aren’t dating licensed contractors, but with little effort, you could also say someone who has the financial burden of numerous horses may only be able to support those horses because their partner makes a crap-tonne of money in construction.

[eggbutt]

@tryintogethere

RG has a background in construction (can’t say how good or bad he is), so not just someone that is just handy. It is plausible that MB did think that RG was licensed.

Yes, considering RG’s previous employment with a bath/kitchen remodeling company, it would be easy to assume he was licensed and at a minimum proficient in the craft. He was working for the company when he went missing for a period of time as I recall. I could be mistaken though.

[YankeeDuchess]

@tryintogethere

RG has a background in construction (can’t say how good or bad he is), so not just someone that is just handy. It is plausible that MB did think that RG was licensed.

Fair point. All I knew about him was that he is an ex-Marine.