Barisone/Kanarek Legal Filings (Public Record)

[FitzE]

@YankeeDuchess

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.

Where was the apology? I must have missed that.

And it is most demonstrably NOT “apparently”. I state specifically that I (i) do not practice the relevant type of law for these cases, and (ii) was not opining in NJ law. KM did not ask me to weigh in on NJ law, she asked me to weigh in on law in general.

[edit] And, no, you didn’t reply to any of my content. I believe you went back and edited your one-liner, cancel-culture response to look more thoughtful, but I have declined to read it. It is disingenuous of you to have edited that to make yourself look like you gave a more robust and reasonable response. It’s dishonest, but, then again, we are used to that from you.

No matter how you try to spin it you were canceling my contribution. I don’t need to disclose my passport countries to you of all people who coyly note you won’t disclose your state. You are remarkably rude, entitled, and, for the most part, talking out your nether regions. You have just enough vocabulary and google searches to sound quasi-learned, but have definitive contributions on exactly nothing. You phrase things as though butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth, but you are uncivil in your discourse.

Please scroll past my contributions. [edit]

[YankeeDuchess]

@LilRanger

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.

      Most boyfriends of clients are not licensed contractors. If you happen to observe that the boyfriend is making a lot of money in construction on other projects, then I agree with you that it would be more natural to assume he is a contractor than otherwise. But I think the property owner still has a responsibility to take 4 seconds to search online as to whether the contractor is licensed, as several posters have done. 

     May I assume you are Canadian based on your spelling of “tonne”?

[Jenerationx]

@YankeeDuchess

But I think the property owner still has a responsibility to take 4 seconds to search online as to whether the contractor is licensed, as several posters have done.

Courts in NJ and several other states disagree with your opinion.

[FitzE]

@LilRanger

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.

This. And the law can easily say, it doesn’t matter if you can establish 100% that client knew, you are still 100% liable. Or, in this case, 300% liable.

[YankeeDuchess]

@YankeeDuchess

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.

My apology to
@FitzE
for incorrectly thinking that she had said in a SafeSport thread that she was Canadian.

[eggbutt]

No, no, no, NO!!! We aren’t questioning identity but we ARE questioning nationality? Give me a break. (Sorry, I read the post before seeing who the poster was and knee-jerked. Back to regularly scheduled programming.)

[FitzE]

@Jenerationx

Courts in NJ and several other states disagree with your opinion.

Again, this. The law can be drafted to assign liability where they want it regardless of details. As I stated in the discussion of general principles, there are reasons to assign liability, like compelling state interest, that supersede layman ideas like it’s common sense that client would do a license search.

[LilRanger]

@YankeeDuchess

Most boyfriends of clients are not licensed contractors. If you happen to observe that the boyfriend is making a lot of money in construction on other projects, then I agree with you that it would be more natural to assume he is a contractor than otherwise. But I think the property owner still has a responsibility to take 4 seconds to search online as to whether the contractor is licensed, as several posters have done.

May I assume you are Canadian based on your spelling of “tonne”?

No, sorry. I just enjoy that particular spelling of crap-tonne. Although sometimes I flirt with spelling it crappe-tonne. For me, tonne looks heavier (and it is!)

[YankeeDuchess]

@FitzE

This. And the law can easily say, it doesn’t matter if you can establish 100% that client knew, you are still 100% liable. Or, in this case, 300% liable.

 In your previous post you reiterated that you were not talking about the actual law in NJ, or some other state, but what the law might say, based on general legal principles. True. No argument there. 

  But does any lawyer know what the law ACTUALLY says on this issue in, ideally, NJ, or in some US state?

[YankeeDuchess]

@LilRanger

No, sorry. I just enjoy that particular spelling of crap-tonne. Although sometimes I flirt with spelling it crappe-tonne. For me, tonne looks heavier (and it is!)

Good explanation. I kind of like crappe-tonne.

[skydy]

@YankeeDuchess

In your previous post you reiterated that you were not talking about the actual law in NJ, or some other state, but what the law might say, based on general legal principles. True. No argument there.

But does any lawyer know what the law ACTUALLY says on this issue in, ideally, NJ, or in some US state?

It’s quite the red herring you have going here.

The person without the license is breaking the law. The person that may have hired him has bigger legal problems to consider, than if he bears any responsibility for another person performing work without a license.

[LilRanger]

@YankeeDuchess

In your previous post you reiterated that you were not talking about the actual law in NJ, or some other state, but what the law might say, based on general legal principles. True. No argument there.

But does any lawyer know what the law ACTUALLY says on this issue in, ideally, NJ, or in some US state?

I think that’s exactly what FrizE is telling us, “in this case, 300%” based on the statute that Knights Mom posted up-thread a bit.

So yeah, relying on what KM posted about NJ case law, regardless of the owners actual knowledge that a contractor does not have a license, the owner can refuse to pay the contractor for legit good work, and then when contractor sues, the owner can even get 300% of the amount requested by the contractor.

This appears to be true in other jurisdictions as well. Who knows what the hell was going on in NJ when these were written, maybe unions ran the show? Maybe construction/real estate developers?

Maybe a tile fell off a roof of a train station when the train was coming into the station and hit someone on the head?

[FitzE]

@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?

The risk is subpar work that is not up to code and endangers the people living there. The state, rightfully and wisely, decides that it is the state’s responsibility to police all that, not the individual homeowner. It is too important an issue (the safety and habitability of buildings within their jurisdiction) to leave to the control or oversight of any individual homeowner, so they take it on themselves. Then they would look to see who best to punish in the case of non-compliance.

Like lawyers need to be responsible for our continuing edu, license, bar admission, etc. Our clients are never required in any way, even in the “4 seconds” it might take to see if we are currently in good standing and licensed, responsible for our compliance with any regulations on us as legal professionals. We are always 100% liable for an failure in that area even if we were to tell a client, “Hey, hire me! I’m cheap b/c I’ve failed to pay my dues and satisfy my CLP requirements in order to be a good standing!!!”

[YankeeDuchess]

@skydy

It’s quite the red herring you have going here.

The person without the license is breaking the law. The person that may have hired him has bigger legal problems to consider than if he bears any responsibility for another person performing work without a license.

In my state (not NJ), a property owner is breaking the law if he knowingly hires an unlicensed contractor. Both sides of the transaction bear some fault and responsibility.

The legal consequences are probably more severe for the unlicensed contractor than for the property owner.

While I don’t find it surprising that the courts would award treble damages to the property owner if the unlicensed contractor essentially defrauded the property owner by falsely claiming to be licensed, I do find it surprising that the courts would award treble damages if there was no fraud, and the property owner hired the contractor knowing full well that the contractor was unlicensed. But maybe that is the case in NJ.

As FitzE pointed out, laws can be written to assign liability wherever the legislators want it assigned. That doesn’t in itself tell us where the laws in specific states actually do assign liability.

[tryintogethere]

@YankeeDuchess

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

As far as that goes, I don’t beileve he made it through Basic, so would that really make him a Marine?

[skydy]

@YankeeDuchess

In my state (not NJ), a property owner is breaking the law if he knowingly hires an unlicensed contractor. Both sides of the transaction bear some fault and responsibility.

The legal consequences are probably more severe for the unlicensed contractor than for the property owner.

While I don’t find it surprising that the courts would award treble damages to the property owner if the unlicensed contractor essentially defrauded the property owner by falsely claiming to be licensed, I do find it surprising that the courts would award treble damages if there was no fraud, and the property owner hired the contractor knowing full well that the contractor was unlicensed. But maybe that is the case in NJ.

As FitzE pointed out, laws can be written to assign liability wherever the legislators want it assigned. That doesn’t in itself tell us where the laws in specific states actually do assign liability.

Guess you will have to remain surprised then…

[skydy]

@tryintogethere

As far as that goes, I don’t beileve he made it through Basic, so would that really make him a Marine?

No, it would not. It would make him an aspiring Marine that didn’t make the grade. Though he could say he “was a Marine” and be both truthful and disingenuous, unless he qualified his statement by admitting he was in boot camp for a few weeks.

[LilRanger]

@YankeeDuchess

In my state (not NJ), a property owner is breaking the law if he knowingly hires an unlicensed contractor. Both sides of the transaction bear some fault and responsibility.

The legal consequences are probably more severe for the unlicensed contractor than for the property owner.

While I don’t find it surprising that the courts would award treble damages to the property owner if the unlicensed contractor essentially defrauded the property owner by falsely claiming to be licensed, I do find it surprising that the courts would award treble damages if there was no fraud, and the property owner hired the contractor knowing full well that the contractor was unlicensed. But maybe that is the case in NJ.

As FitzE pointed out, laws can be written to assign liability wherever the legislators want it assigned. That doesn’t in itself tell us where the laws in specific states actually do assign liability.

Yes, purposefully hiring someone you know you won’t have to pay would be a total d!ck move. But apparently NJ is willing to allow a few of those to protect the other owners who are legit trying.

And, as FiztE said, to protect the general welfare and ensure the safety and habitability of homes in NJ. Which totally makes sense. To me, a home owner. And NJ obviously equates safe homes as being as important as safe medical care, and doesn’t punish people for going to an unlicensed medical provider. Which makes sense to me, a person who sometimes need medial services.

[ake987]

@FitzE

You were an ass in your response to me. And, no, you didn’t reply to any of my content. I believe you went back and edited your one-liner, cancel-culture response to look more thoughtful, but I have declined to read it. It is disingenuous of you to have edited that to make yourself look like you gave a more robust and reasonable response. It’s dishonest, but, then again, we are used to that from you.

No matter how you try to spin it you were canceling my contribution. I don’t need to disclose my passport countries to you of all people who coyly note you won’t disclose your state. You are remarkably rude, entitled, and, for the most part, talking out your nether regions. You have just enough vocabulary and google searches to sound quasi-learned, but have definitive contributions on exactly nothing. You phrase things as though butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth, but you are uncivil in your discourse.

Please scroll past my contributions. Adults are talking.

Brilliantly analyzed and beautifully articulated.

[eggbutt]

@tryintogethere

As far as that goes, I don’t beileve he made it through Basic, so would that really make him a Marine?

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Wearing the uniform for a portion of basic training doesn’t make one a veteran. Most Marines have their passion for being a full-fledged US Marine plastered all over their SM, vehicles, body, anywhere they can show the brotherhood. Shame on anyone passing themselves off as a US Military Veteran who is not. (As far as I’ve seen, only LK has made this claim.)

Semper Fi.